A Systematic Review of Minimally Invasive Approaches to Surgical Atrial Septal Defect Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Atrial septal defects (ASD) are the most common congenital cardiac malformations. Over the preceding decades, a host of minimally invasive and interventional techniques for ASD closure have emerged. Minimally invasive ASD (MIASD) repair utilises thoracotomies, endoscopic, robotic, and even beating heart approaches to facilitate MIASD repair. We performed a systematic review to summarise the literature describing the outcomes of patients following MIASD repair. METHOD: PubMed, Medline, and Scopus were searched by two authors for manuscripts describing outcomes following MIASD repair. Overall, 1,972 titles were screened, 1,945 were excluded, and 27 were included in the review. The primary outcome was mortality and secondary outcomes included postoperative morbidity. RESULTS: Measures of mortality were largely limited to 30 days postoperatively, with 0% mortality reported for MIASD up to 30 days. Rates of postoperative morbidity were low in both sternotomy and MIASD groups, with no consistent differences identified. Rates of intensive care unit and hospital stay were consistently reported to be lower with MIASD than with the conventional approach. CONCLUSIONS: MIASD repairs have continued to evolve and improve. Among the various approaches to MIASD repair, all have been associated with low rates of morbidity and mortality. Surgical ASD repair continues to be versatile, allowing for repair of all manner of ASDs, and allowing for the concomitant management of other cardiac conditions. Regular advancements in this field, including the optimisation and development of surgical techniques with regular evaluation of patient outcomes, will ensure appropriate patient selection and optimisation of outcomes for patients with ASD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".