MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401225518 · doi:10.1186/s13019-024-02948-9

Periareolar minimally invasive approach for cardiac surgery: a case series and description of technique with a review of literature

2024· review· en· W4401225518 on OpenAlexaff
Hatan Mortada, Abdulaziz Alsuhaim, Nasser Alkhamees, Omar Fouda Neel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiothoracic Surgery · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersDeanship of Scientific Research, King Saud UniversityKing Saud University
KeywordsMedicineCardiac surgerySurgeryCardiothoracic surgeryVascular surgeryQuality of life (healthcare)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) has garnered significant attention for its potential benefits, including decreased surgical trauma, accelerated recovery, and improved aesthetic outcomes. This case series aims to elucidate the technical aspects and assess the aesthetic, functional, and quality of life outcomes associated with the utilization of a periareolar incision approach in female patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: The periareolar MICS technique, performed with or without high-definition (HD) 3D endoscopic visualization, limited rib-spreading, and a periareolar incision spanning the 3 to 9 o'clock positions, was employed. We present a case series encompassing five female patients who underwent various cardiac procedures for different pathologies using this approach. RESULTS: No intraoperative complications occurred, and all patients experienced uneventful postoperative recoveries. The periareolar approach resulted in well-healed incisions with minimal scaring, preserving breast contour and yielding satisfactory cosmetic outcomes. Patients reported negligible pain levels and expressed contentment with the scar appearance. CONCLUSION: The periareolar incision technique in MICS represents an efficacious approach characterized by favorable aesthetic outcomes and enhanced patient experience. Further investigations are warranted to compare different MICS approaches with respect to pain management and their impact on quality-of-life domains.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiothoracic SurgerySame topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207