2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.05.041
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Using Robotic Totally Endoscopic Surgery: Perioperative Outcomes and 5-Year Results

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
52
2
3

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 74 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
2
52
2
3
Order By: Relevance
“…14) Bonatti et al described the feasibility and safety of simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization. 15,16) The approach appeared safe and feasible, particularly with advances in robotic instrumentation, and it may be an evolutionary step to use a hybrid procedure that combines PCI and minimally invasive CAG. …”
Section: Hybrid Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…14) Bonatti et al described the feasibility and safety of simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization. 15,16) The approach appeared safe and feasible, particularly with advances in robotic instrumentation, and it may be an evolutionary step to use a hybrid procedure that combines PCI and minimally invasive CAG. …”
Section: Hybrid Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We have published our TECAB results alone and as combinations of TECAB with PCI in hybrid coronary revascularization (1,2,5). Results appear to meet the standards of standard CABG through sternotomy.…”
Section: Clinical Resultsmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…33 Small nonrandomized studies comparing hybrid revascularization to traditional CABG have shown similar short-term results, but long-term outcomes are unknown. 33, 34 An appropriate discussion to have is when revascularization should be attempted in high-risk patients and how highrisk revascularization compares to optimal medical treatment alone. A third treatment arm of optimal medical therapy would have been informative; unfortunately, such a group with sufficient follow-up data could not be identified for this study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%