Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Minimally-invasive cardiac surgery: a bibliometric analysis of impact and force to identify key and facilitating advanced training

Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery volume 17, Article number: 236 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The number of citations an article receives is a marker of its scientific influence within a particular specialty. This bibliometric analysis intended to recognise the top 100 cited articles in minimally-invasive cardiac surgery, to determine the fundamental subject areas that have borne considerable influence upon clinical practice and academic knowledge whilst also considering bibliometric scope. This is increasingly relevant in a continually advancing specialty and one where minimally-invasive cardiac procedures have the potential for huge benefits to patient outcomes.

Methods

The Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) data citation index database was searched with the following terms: [Minimal* AND Invasive* AND Card* AND Surg*]. Results were limited to full text English language manuscripts and ranked by citation number. Further analysis of the top 100 cited articles was carried out according to subject, author, publication year, journal, institution and country of origin.

Results

A total of 4716 eligible manuscripts were retrieved. Of the top 100 papers, the median (range) citation number was 101 (51–414). The most cited paper by Lichtenstein et al. (Circulation 114(6):591–596, 2006) published in Circulation with 414 citations focused on transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation as a viable alternative to aortic valve replacement with cardiopulmonary bypass in selected patients with aortic stenosis. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery published the most papers and received the most citations (n = 35; 3036 citations). The United States of America had the most publications and citations (n = 52; 5303 citations), followed by Germany (n = 27; 2598 citations). Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, published the most papers of all institutions. Minimally-invasive cardiac surgery pertaining to valve surgery (n = 42) and coronary artery bypass surgery (n = 30) were the two most frequent topics by a large margin.

Conclusions

This work establishes a comprehensive and informative analysis of the most influential publications in minimally-invasive cardiac surgery and outlines what constitutes a citable article. Undertaking a quantitative evaluation of the top 100 papers aids in recognising the contributions of key authors and institutions as well as guiding future efforts in this field to continually improve the quality of care offered to complex cardiac patients.

Peer Review reports

Background

The advent of interventional cardiology has preceded changes of patient demographics in Cardiac Surgery, with prospective patients being older and arguably much more complex [1]. Minimally-invasive techniques have started to become more prominent as cases become more complex. As of the mid-1990s there are been development of techniques to involve mini-sternotomy and mini-thoracotomy approaches, this however currently appears to be more surgeon and centre specific due to high complexity of such procedures [2, 3].

In accordance with the American Heart Association definition, alternative approaches not involving the traditional full sternotomy belong to the class of minimally-invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) [4]. With the use of such techniques however, it is hoped that there are improved patient outcomes and reduced risks to patients by way of shorter hospital admissions, earlier return to normal daily activity and lower post-operative infection rates as opposed to full sternotomy approaches. The evidence however is currently limited with current evidence showing post-operative outcome comparable to traditional techniques [5]. Research into minimally-invasive cardiac surgery is ongoing with significant studies such as the UK Mini-mitral trial (Minimally-invasive thoracoscopically-guided right minithoracotomy versus conventional sternotomy for mitral valve repair) and Manubrium-limited ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement (MAVRIC) trial [6].

With continued research and development, MICS is set to become highly prevalent in Cardiothoracic Surgery training and identifying key areas of research would help to guide training and research in the future.

Citations are gathered when an article is referenced by another peer-reviewed paper.

The number of citations a paper receives is considered to reflect the impact a paper has in the scientific community, as such those bodies of work with the greatest number of citations are considered to have the greatest impact. These articles will therefore have the greatest bearing on current surgical opinion and are likely to influence surgical training [7]. Ellul et al. [8] have previously used such an analysis to determine research themes that are most influential in understanding emergency abdominal surgery pathology and management to ultimately guide future research. Within general cardiac surgery, it has been suggested that despite some flaws, bibliometric analysis has inherent merits to guiding future research and potentially influencing training [9].

Currently no bibliometric analysis has been undertaken to determine the significant manuscripts in MICS. The aim of this study was to determine the studies most influential in the current development of MICS based on bibliometric scope. Identify the core topics and themes researched in this emergent class of cardiac surgery, leading to better understanding training needs in Cardiothoracic Surgery.

Materials and methods

The Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) data citation index database was searched with the following terms: [Minimal* AND Invasive* AND Card* AND Surg*]. Results were limited to full text English language manuscripts and ranked by citation number.

Results were limited to full text English Language papers account for the whole time period encompassed. A team of cardiac surgeons and trainees (GB, RK, RA) conducted a final analysis of the Web of Science results to identify the top 100 cited papers that were found to be relevant to MICS. Further regression analysis was conducted of the 100 papers with the most citations. Analyses were performed by author, subject, year of publication, journal, journal impact factor, institution and originating country.

A citation rate variable was formulated for each identified paper, by dividing the total number of citations by the number of years since publication. Articles with the same number of citations were ranked according to citation rate. Further regression analysis was performed to ascertain a potential relationship between journal impact factor and citation using SPSS v23.0. Results were considered significant if P ≤ 0.05.

Results

A total of 4716 full articles were retrieved via the Web of Science, all of which were English language. The 100 most cited manuscripts for MICS are listed in Table 1 with a median citation number of 101 (51–414). The most cited article by Lichtenstein et al. [10] was published in Circulation and concentrated on transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation in as a viable alternative to aortic valve replacement with cardiopulmonary bypass in selected patients with aortic stenosis. It was cited 414 times. The most recent study by Miceli et al. [47], looking at early outcomes and one-year survival following minimally-invasive aortic valve replacement with Perceval S sutureless valve in two European centres was published in the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery and cited 63 times. The oldest featured manuscripts, of which there were four, were published in 1996 by Calafiore et al. investigating minimally-invasive coronary artery bypass grafting cited 110 times, Schwartz et al. exploring minimally-invasive cardiopulmonary bypass with cardioplegic arrest (a closed chest technique with equivalent myocardial protection) cited 106 times, Lytle’s examination of minimally-invasive cardiac surgery received 83 citations, and finally Stevens et al. with 68 citations for their examination of port-access coronary artery bypass with cardioplegic arrest.

Table 1 The 100 most cited articles in minimally-invasive cardiac surgery
Full size table

The 100 most cited manuscripts were from 30 different journals with between 1 and 35 articles per journal (Table 2). Most papers were published in the Annals of Thoracic Surgery (n = 35), also gaining the most citations (n = 3036). The New England Journal of Medicine had the highest impact factor (72.406) providing a single published article with 149 citations [37].

Table 2 List of journals from which the top 100 manuscripts are obtained
Full size table

The United States of America had the most publications (USA; n = 52; 5303 citations) followed by Germany (n = 27; 2598 citations) and Canada (n = 3; 681 citations). The United Kingdom had 3 manuscripts (244 citations) in the top 100. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, is the institution with the greatest number of papers in the top 100 (n = 6; 861 citations). A total of 9 first authors had more than one manuscript in the top 100 with one having 4 manuscripts (Holzhey, DM), while 2 others had 3 each (Dogan S; Walther, T) and 6 more each had 2 articles on the list.

The citation rate range of the top 10 papers was between 47 and 16.2 times (Table 3). The USA had the most papers in the top 10 with 4 manuscripts, Germany had 2 while Austria, Australia, Canada and France had 1 each.

Table 3 The 10 most cited Minimally-invasive Cardiac Surgery manuscripts
Full size table

The top 100 manuscripts covered a wide range of subject areas. The number of papers relating to each topic is shown in Table 4. The most widely studied subjects were valve surgery with 42 manuscripts, followed by coronary revascularisation with 30 manuscripts. Both topics were explored together in 2 papers. Cardiac arrhythmias were the focus of 6 papers while the repair of septal defects and robotics each had 5.

Table 4 The number of manuscripts relating to each topic within MICS
Full size table

Regression analysis of impact factor and citation overall showed small positive correlation (R2 = 0.006; P = 0.691) (Fig. 1). Mean citations were however seen to rise with journal impact factor (Fig. 2) (R2 = 0.6) this however was again shown to be a weak relationship (P = 0.208).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Relationship between journal impact factor and total citation. Regression analysis of impact factor and citation overall showed small positive correlation (R.2 = 0.006; P = 0.691)

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Relationship between journal impact factor and total citations. Mean citations were seen to rise with journal impact factor although not statistically significant, P = 0.208

Full size image

When focusing on purely cardiothoracic surgery specific journals, a more apparent relationship between journal impact factor and citations an article receives (R2 = 0.239, P = 0.076) (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Relationship between journal impact fact and mean citations in cardiothoracic themed journals. A relationship appears to be present when comparing journal impact factor and citations an article receives (R2 = 0.239, P = 0.076) in cardiothoracic surgery themed journals

Full size image

Discussion

Being the first of its kind, this bibliometric analysis of MICS recognises the authors and topics possessing/holding the greatest effect/bearing within this surgical specialty. A number of pathological diseases are explored within the top 100 manuscripts, along with minimally-invasive surgical interventions to best manage these conditions.

Lichtenstein et al. [10] with 414 citations concentrated on transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and at unacceptably high risk for open aortic valve replacement with cardiopulmonary bypass due to comorbidity. Percutaneous transfemoral arterial valve implantation was unsuitable in these patients on account of iliofemoral atherosclerosis and, iliac and aortic tortuosity. Originally presented in an animal model by Andersen et al. [107] and first performed in humans as a transvenous transseptal procedure by Cribier et al. [108], several groups have followed the progression of percutaneous heart valves. A transfemoral arterial procedure has had promising outcomes though this approach is unsuitable in some patients due to femoral, iliac or aortic size, atheroma or tortuosity. It is concluded that prosthetic aortic valve implantation via transapical catheter-based approach without the need for cardiopulmonary bypass is an appropriate treatment option in patients that are unsuitable or represent an unacceptably high risk for either open or percutaneous procedures. The outcomes at 6-month follow-up [53] are also contained within the top 100, published in the European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery and cited 128 times. Valve surgery is the dominant theme in the top 100 manuscripts, 8 of which focus on transapical aortic valve implantation.

The second most cited article by Kim et al. [12] (329 citations) published in Nature Materials Journal (impact factor 39.737) focused on the development of advanced minimally-invasive diagnostic and surgical tools, with examples given for complex arrhythmogenic cardiac conditions. They discuss the material challenges faced in finding biocompatible materials and devices that are of most value/advantageous in respect of the soft, curvilinear surfaces of the human body. Commercially available balloon catheters are exploited as a platform for such devices. Key steps in the construction process are presented to clarify how functionality is added to balloons without compromising their expansion or mechanical properties.

The third most cited article by Cohn et al. [13] (306 citations) published in the Annals of Surgery (impact factor 8.980) assessed the quality of valve replacement and repairs performed via minimally-invasive incisions compared with conventional open heart atrial and mitral valve surgery. Minimally-invasive surgery is shown to cause less trauma and blood loss, is cosmetically superior with less incisional pain and requirement for analgesia, and sternal infections are avoided. A disadvantage was identified in the use of femoral cannulation with this cohort experiencing groin infections and arterial reconstructions. A concern is highlighted regarding the quality of valve procedure achieved without complete exposure of the heart with results confirming equality between minimally-invasive and the traditional open technique. An additional advantage is emphasised for the cost-effective medical domain in which we reside.

In comparison to bibliometric analyses in other surgical specialties, the citation numbers of the top 100 manuscripts in MICS are significantly lower. For example, the most influential paper in the recent bibliometric analysis in minimally-invasive gastrointestinal surgery by Ahmad et al. [109] received 3331 citations with a median (range) citation of 555 (3331–317). The same is true in a number of other surgical and non-surgical specialties. This might indicate a low degree of research activity within MICS in comparison to more established fields. Alternatively, a lack of or limited funding may be responsible as evidence by only 6 of the top 100 citations being randomised trials, possibly due to the logistical challenges faced in undertaking such high quality clinical trials. It is more than likely, that as minimally-invasive techniques in cardiac surgery is still relatively new in the field, we are unable to recreate and follow these trends within the literature however, as this become more commonplace over time it is likely these tendencies will change and mirror those within other surgical specialities.

It was interesting to note that within this field of cardio surgery, there were ultimately poor relationships between citations accrued and journal impact factor. One thought would be that compared to specialities such as general surgery, cardiac surgery is still relatively in its infancy in its current form, this is further potentiated by the fact that MICS surgery is a very new subject area of interest. The weak relationships seen may be a factor of a lack of time in circulation and that this will strengthen as there are further development and time in the area.

The dominant themes identified in this analysis related to two subjects, valve surgery and coronary artery revascularisation, thus highlighting the areas in which most research activity is taking place.

A journal’s impact factor quantifies the average number of citations of a manuscript published within this journal over a given time period. Journals with a higher impact factor are considered as being of greater quality and have an increased likelihood of containing the most prominent publications.

Limitations of this study must be factored. Firstly, we only reviewed English language papers, this no doubt removes studies within this subject area that could limit our findings and further dilute any relation between journal impact factor and force. By focusing on only the top 100 papers based on citations, it must also be considered that other important research is left out, we aimed to account for this through also calculating citation rates however newer papers would still hold a disadvantage. There may also be an issue with citation rate in that older papers have more time to accumulate citations. This may create an evolving bias over time and thus citation rate itself may not be a true measure of influence on research. A further concern with bibliometric analysis would be that due to citations being affected by time, a papers influence is likely to change with new trends emerging as the scope of the field develops. As a result, newer publications will likely become more influential. This would mean a repeat analysis with the same methodoloy in 5 years will likely yield different findings with different topics and trends seen. The positive to this however is that such citation analyses will allow for quick analysis of the most impactful papers in a topic area at a time. This is highly pertinent in training whereby a trainee could identify papers with the most force to back up clinical decision making.

Conclusions

Minimally-invasive cardiac surgery has gained popularity over the past decade, its growth propelled by the drive to welcome the benefits offered by minimal access techniques, for example reduced surgical trauma and less pain, to the realm of cardiac surgery. Indeed, patients seek surgical methods that allow for more rapid return to normal activities along with an improved quality of life.

Despite cardiac surgery’s progress towards less invasive techniques where the concomitant advances in perfusion methods, more sophisticated transthoracic echocardiography and innovations in robotic science are driving changes in clinical practice: Some doubts remain regarding its efficacy. The body of published literature on MICS has since grown greatly and there is a clear focus of development that is likely to impact future practice and training; with trainers and trainees needing to stay in the forefront of changes in surgical practice in Cardiac surgery.

This bibliometric analysis establishes an informative examination of the 100 most influential publications in MICS and outlines what constitutes a citable article. Undertaking a quantitative evaluation of the top 100 papers aids in recognising the contributions of key authors and institutions as well as guiding future efforts in this field to continually improve the quality of care offered to complex cardiac patients as well as providing focus for trainees and future researchers who can use such studies to identify and evaluate research that could later impact their clinical decisions and practice.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the Web of Science repository, https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/web-of-science/.

Abbreviations

MICS:

Minimally-invasive cardiac surgery

MAVRIC:

Manubrium-limited ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement

References

  1. Pierri MD, Capestro F, Zingaro C, Torracca L. The changing face of cardiac surgery patients: an insight into a Mediterranean region. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010;38(4):407–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Carpentier A, Loulmet D, Le Bret E, Haugades B, Dassier P, Guibourt P. Open heart operation under videosurgery and minithoracotomy. First case (mitral valvuloplasty) operated with success. C R Acad Sci III. 1996;319(3):219–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Doenst T, Lamelas J. Do we have enough evidence for minimally-invasive cardiac surgery? A critical review of scientific and non-scientific information. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2017;58(4):613–23.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hillis LD, Smith PK, Anderson JL, Bittl JA, Bridges CR, Byrne JG, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2011;124(23):e652-735.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Doenst T, Diab M, Sponholz C, Bauer M, Farber G. The opportunities and limitations of minimally-invasive cardiac surgery. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2017;114(46):777–84.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Akowuah E, Goodwin AT, Owens WA, Hancock HC, Maier R, Kasim A, et al. Manubrium-limited ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement (MAVRIC): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2017;18(1):46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Murray MR, Wang T, Schroeder GD, Hsu WK. The 100 most cited spine articles. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(10):2059–69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Ellul T, Bullock N, Abdelrahman T, Powell AG, Witherspoon J, Lewis WG. The 100 most cited manuscripts in emergency abdominal surgery: a bibliometric analysis. Int J Surg. 2017;37:29–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. O’Sullivan KE, Kelly JC, Hurley JP. The 100 most cited publications in cardiac surgery: a bibliometric analysis. Ir J Med Sci. 2015;184(1):91–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lichtenstein SV, Cheung A, Ye J, Thompson CR, Carere RG, Pasupati S, et al. Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation in humans—initial clinical experience. Circulation. 2006;114(6):591–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Aris A, Camara ML, Montiel J, Delgado LJ, Galan J, Litvan H. Ministernotomy versus median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a prospective, randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;67(6):1583–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim DH, Lu NS, Ghaffari R, Kim YS, Lee SP, Xu LZ, et al. Materials for multifunctional balloon catheters with capabilities in cardiac electrophysiological mapping and ablation therapy. Nat Mater. 2011;10(4):316–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Cohn LH, Adams DH, Couper GS, Bichell DP, Rosborough DM, Sears SP, et al. Minimally-invasive cardiac valve surgery improves patient satisfaction while reducing costs of cardiac valve replacement and repair. Ann Surg. 1997;226(4):421–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Wierzbicki M, Drangova M, Guiraudon G, Peters T. Validation of dynamic heart models obtained using non-linear registration for virtual reality training, planning, and guidance of minimally-invasive cardiac surgeries. Med Image Anal. 2004;8(3):387–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pisano GP, Bohmer RMJ, Edmondson AC. Organizational differences in rates of learning: evidence from the adoption of minimally-invasive cardiac surgery. Manag Sci. 2001;47(6):752–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Argenziano M, Oz MC, Kohmoto T, Morgan J, Dimitui J, Mongero L, et al. Totally endoscopic atrial septal defect repair with robotic assistance. Circulation. 2003;108(10):191–4.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Armsby LR, Keane JF, Sherwood MC, Forbess JM, Perry SB, Lock JE. Management of coronary artery fistulae—patient selection and results of transcatheter closure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39(6):1026–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. DeRose JJ, Ashton RC, Belsley S, Swistel DG, Vloka M, Ehlert F, et al. Robotically assisted left ventricular epicardial lead implantation for biventricular pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41(8):1414–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Walther T, Dewey T, Borger MA, Kempfert J, Linke A, Becht R, et al. Transapical Aortic Valve Implantation: step by Step. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;87(1):276–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Savitt MA, Gao GQ, Furnary AP, Swanson J, Gately HL, Handy JR. Application of robotic-assisted techniques to the surgical evaluation and treatment of the anterior mediastinum. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79(2):450–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Modi P, Hassan A, Chitwood WR. Minimally-invasive mitral valve surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2008;34(5):943–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dogan S, Dzemali O, Wimmer-Greinecker G, Derra P, Doss M, Khan MF, et al. Minimally-invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized trial. J Heart Valve Dis. 2003;12(1):76–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mohr FW, Falk V, Diegeler A, Walther T, Gummert JF, Bucerius J, et al. Computer-enhanced “robotic” cardiac surgery: experience in 148 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001;121(5):842–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Stephenson ER, Sankholkar S, Ducko CT, Damiano RJ. Robotically assisted microsurgery for endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66(3):1064–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Peyton PJ, Chong SW. Minimally-invasive Measurement of Cardiac Output during Surgery and Critical Care A Meta-analysis of Accuracy and Precision. Anesthesiology. 2010;113(5):1220–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Davis Z, Jacobs HK, Zhang M, Thomas C, Castellanos Y. Endoscopic vein harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting: technique and outcomes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1998;116(2):228–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mohr FW, Fabricius AM, Falk V, Autschbach R, Doll N, von Oppell U, et al. Curative treatment of atrial fibrillation with intraoperative radiofrequency ablation: short-term and midterm results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;123(5):919–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Treede H, Mohr FW, Baldus S, Rastan A, Ensminger S, Arnold M, et al. Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the JenaValve (TM) system: acute and 30-day results of the multicentre CE-mark study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;41(6):e131–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Grossi EA, Schwartz CF, Yu PJ, Jorde UP, Crooke GA, Grau JB, et al. High-risk aortic valve replacement: are the outcomes as bad as predicted? Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85(1):102–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Stevens JH, Burdon TA, Siegel LC, Peters WS, Pompili MF, StGoar FG, et al. Port-access coronary artery bypass with cardioplegic arrest: acute and chronic canine studies. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;62(2):435–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Walther T, Falk V, Borger MA, Dewey T, Wimmer-Greinecker G, Schuler G, et al. Minimally-invasive transapical beating heart aortic valve implantation—proof of concept. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2007;31(1):9–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. McGinn JT, Usman S, Lapierre H, Pothula VR, Mesana TG, Ruel M. Minimally-invasive coronary artery bypass grafting dual-center experience in 450 consecutive patients. Circulation. 2009;120(11):S78–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gundry SR, Shattuck OH, Razzouk AJ, del Rio MJ, Sardari FF, Bailey LL. Facile minimally-invasive cardiac surgery via ministernotomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;65(4):1100–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Seeburger J, Borger MA, Doll N, Walther T, Passage J, Falk V, et al. Comparison of outcomes of minimally-invasive mitral valve surgery for posterior, anterior and bileaflet prolapse. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009;36(3):532–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Collura CA, Johnson JN, Moir C, Ackerman MJ. Left cardiac sympathetic denervation for the treatment of long QT syndrome and catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia using video-assisted thoracic surgery. Heart Rhythm. 2009;6(6):752–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Morgan JA, Peacock JC, Kohmoto T, Garrido MJ, Schanzer BM, Kherani AR, et al. Robotic techniques improve quality of life in patients undergoing atrial septal defect repair. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;77(4):1328–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Diegeler A, Thiele H, Falk V, Hambrecht R, Spyrantis N, Sick P, et al. Comparison of stenting with minimally-invasive bypass surgery for stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(8):561–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Holzhey DM, Jacobs S, Mochalski M, Walther T, Thiele H, Mohr FW, et al. Seven-year follow-up after minimally-invasive direct coronary artery bypass: experience with more than 1300 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;83(1):108–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Black MD, Freedom RM. Minimally-invasive repair of atrial septal defects. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;65(3):765–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Schmitto JD, Mokashi SA, Cohn LH. Minimally-invasive valve surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56(6):455–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Subramanian VA. Less invasive arterial CABG on a beating heart. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;63(6):S68–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Walther T, Falk V, Metz S, Diegeler A, Battellini R, Autschbach R, et al. Pain and quality of life after minimally-invasive versus conventional cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;67(6):1643–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Phan K, Xie A, Di Eusanio M, Yan TD. A meta-analysis of minimally-invasive versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98(4):1499–511.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Degani A, Choset H, Wolf A, Zenati MA, IEEE. Highly articulated robotic probe for minimally-invasive surgery. In: 2006 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation ICRA2006. p. 4167-+.

  45. Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Concistre G, Grossmann I, Hinzmann M, Fischlein T. The perceval S aortic valve has the potential of shortening surgical time: does it also result in improved outcome? Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;96(1):77–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Grossi EA, Galloway AC, LaPietra A, Ribakove GH, Ursomanno P, Delianides J, et al. Minimally-invasive mitral valve surgery: a 6-year experience with 714 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;74(3):660–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Miceli A, Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Murzi M, Gilmanov D, Concistre G, et al. Minimally-invasive aortic valve replacement with Perceval S sutureless valve: early outcomes and one-year survival from two European centers. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148(6):2838–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Rosengart TK, Feldman T, Borger MA, Vassiliades TA, Gillinov AM, Hoercher KJ, et al. Percutaneous and minimally-invasive valve procedures—a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, Council on Clinical Cardiology, Functional Genomics and Translational Biology Interdisciplinary Working Group, and Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Working Group. Circulation. 2008;117(13):1750–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lang N, Pereira MJ, Lee Y, Friehs I, Vasilyev NV, Feins EN, et al. A blood-resistant surgical glue for minimally-invasive repair of vessels and heart defects. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6(218):218.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Nakamura Y, Kishi K, Kawakami H, IEEE. Heartbeat synchronization for robotic cardiac surgery. In: 2001 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, vols I-Iv, Proceedings. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation 2001. p. 2014–9.

  51. Folliguet TA, Laborde F, Zannis K, Ghorayeb G, Haverich A, Shrestha M. Sutureless perceval aortic valve replacement: results of two European centers. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93(5):1483–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Benetti F, Mariani MA, Sani G, Boonstra PW, Grandjean JG, Giomarelli P, et al. Video-assisted minimally-invasive coronary operations without cardiopulmonary bypass: a multicenter study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996;112(6):1478–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ye J, Cheung A, Lichtenstein SV, Pasupati S, Carere RG, Thompson CR, et al. Six-month outcome of transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation in the initial seven patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2007;31(1):16–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Van Linden A, Kempfert J, Rastan AJ, Holzhey D, Blumenstein J, Schuler G, et al. Risk of acute kidney injury after minimally-invasive transapical aortic valve implantation in 270 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;39(6):835–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Subramanian VA, McCabe JC, Geller CM. Minimally-invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting: two year clinical experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;64(6):1648–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Bonaros N, Schachner T, Wiedemann D, Oehlinger A, Ruetzler E, Feuchtner G, et al. Quality of life improvement after robotically assisted coronary artery bypass grafting. Cardiology. 2009;114(1):59–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Chitwood WR, Elbeery JR, Moran JF, Balch DC, Chapman WHH, Deaton DH, et al. Minimally-invasive mitral valve repair using transthoracic aortic occlusion. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;63(5):1477–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. BhaskerRao B, VanHimbergen D, Edmonds HL, Jaber S, Ali AT, Pagni S, et al. Evidence for improved cerebral function after minimally-invasive bypass surgery. J Card Surg. 1998;13(1):27–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Casselman FP, Van Slycke S, Wellens F, De Geest R, Degrieck I, Van Praet F, et al. Mitral valve surgery can now routinely be performed endoscopically. Circulation. 2003;108(10):48–54.

    Google Scholar 

  60. McClure RS, Athanasopoulos LV, McGurk S, Davidson MJ, Couper GS, Cohn LH. One thousand minimally-invasive mitral valve operations: early outcomes, late outcomes, and echocardiographic follow-up. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;145(5):1199–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Dogan S, Aybek T, Andressen E, Byhahn C, Mierdl S, Westphal K, et al. Totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting on cardiopulmonary bypass with robotically enhanced telemanipulation: report of forty-five cases. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;123(6):1125–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Holzhey DM, Shi WL, Borger MA, Seeburger J, Garbade J, Pfannmuller B, et al. Minimally-invasive versus sternotomy approach for mitral valve surgery in patients greater than 70 years old: a propensity-matched comparison. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91(2):401–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Calafiore AM, Angelini GD, Bergsland J, Salerno TA. Minimally-invasive coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;62(5):1545–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kempfert J, Van Linden A, Linke A, Borger MA, Rastan A, Mukherjee C, et al. Transapical off-pump valve-in-valve implantation in patients with degenerated aortic xenografts. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89(6):1934–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Tabata M, Umakanthan R, Cohn LH, Bolman RM, Shekar PS, Chen FY, et al. Early and late outcomes of 1000 minimally-invasive aortic valve operations. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2008;33(4):537–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Atallah J, Fynn-Thompson F, Cecchin F, DiBardino DJ, Walsh EP, Berul CI. Video-assisted thoracoscopic cardiac denervation: a potential novel therapeutic option for children with intractable ventricular arrhythmias. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;86(5):1620–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Schwartz DS, Ribakove GH, Grossi EA, Stevens JH, Siegel LC, StGoar FG, et al. Minimally-invasive cardiopulmonary bypass with cardioplegic arrest: a closed chest technique with equivalent myocardial protection. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996;111(3):556–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Seeburger J, Borger MA, Falk V, Passage J, Walther T, Doll N, et al. Minimally-invasive mitral valve surgery after previous sternotomy: experience in 181 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;87(3):709–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Kocher AA, Laufer G, Haverich A, Shrestha M, Walther T, Misfeld M, et al. One-year outcomes of the Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis With a Next Generation Surgical Aortic Valve (TRITON) trial: a prospective multicenter study of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement with the EDWARDS INTUITY Valve System. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;145(1):110–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Gillinov AM, Banbury MK, Cosgrove DM. Hemisternotomy approach for aortic and mitral valve surgery. J Card Surg. 2000;15(1):15–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Compton FD, Zukunft B, Hoffmann C, Zidek W, Schaefer JH. Performance of a minimally-invasive uncalibrated cardiac output monitoring system (Flotrac (TM)/Vigileo (TM)) in haemodynamically unstable patients. Br J Anaesth. 2008;100(4):451–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Edgerton JR, Brinkman WT, Weaver T, Prince SL, Culica D, Herbert MA, et al. Pulmonary vein isolation and autonomic denervation for the management of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation by a minimally-invasive surgical approach. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;140(4):823–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Bacha EA, Cao QL, Starr JP, Waight D, Ebeid MR, Hijazi ZM. Perventricular device closure of muscular ventricular septal defects on the beating heart: technique and results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;126(6):1718–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Plass A, Scheffel H, Alkadhi H, Kaufmann P, Genoni M, Falk V, et al. Aortic valve replacement through a minimally-invasive approach: preoperative planning, surgical technique, and outcome. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88(6):1851–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Bein B, Renner J, Caliebe D, Scholz J, Paris A, Fraund S, et al. Sevoflurane but not propofol preserves myocardial function during minimally-invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery. Anesth Analg. 2005;100(3):610–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Kappert U, Cichon R, Schneider J, Gulielmos V, Ahmadzade T, Nicolai J, et al. Technique of closed chest coronary artery surgery on the beating heart. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2001;20(4):765–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Glower DD, Landolfo KP, Clements F, Debruijn NP, Stafford-Smith M, Smith PK, et al. Mitral valve operation via Port Access versus median sternotomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1998;14:S143–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Calafiore AM, Teodori G, DiGiammarco G, Vitolla G, Iaco A, Iovino T, et al. Minimally-invasive coronary artery bypass grafting on a beating heart. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;63(6):S72–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Buhre G, Weyland A, Kazmaier S, Hanekop GG, Baryalei MM, Sydow M, et al. Comparison of cardiac output assessed by pulse-contour analysis and thermodilution in patients undergoing minimally-invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 1999;13(4):437–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. ElBardissi AW, Aranki SF, Sheng S, O’Brien SM, Greenberg CC, Gammie JS. Trends in isolated coronary artery bypass grafting: an analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons adult cardiac surgery database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;143(2):273–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Lytle BW. Minimally-invasive cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996;111(3):554–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Gulielmos V, Menschikowski M, Dill HM, Eller M, Thiele S, Tugtekin SM, et al. Interleukin-1, interleukin-6 and myocardial enzyme response after coronary artery bypass grafting—a prospective randomized comparison of the conventional and three minimally-invasive surgical techniques. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2000;18(5):594–600.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Holzhey DM, Seeburger J, Misfeld M, Borger MA, Mohr FW. Learning minimally-invasive mitral valve surgery a cumulative sum sequential probability analysis of 3895 operations from a single high-volume center. Circulation. 2013;128(5):483–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Dhole S, Mehta Y, Saxena H, Juneja R, Trehan N. Comparison of continuous thoracic epidural and paravertebral blocks for postoperative analgesia after minimally-invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2001;15(3):288–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Dogan S, Aybek T, Risteski PS, Detho F, Rapp A, Wimmer-Greinecker G, et al. Minimally-invasive port access versus conventional mitral valve surgery: prospective randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79(2):492–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Wittwer T, Cremer J, Boonstra P, Grandjean J, Mariani M, Mugge A, et al. Myocardial “hybrid” revascularisation with minimally-invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting combined with coronary angioplasty: preliminary results of a multicentre study. Heart. 2000;83(1):58–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Dogangil G, Davies BL, Rodriguez y Baena F. A review of medical robotics for minimally-invasive soft tissue surgery. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H J Eng Med. 2010;224(H5):653–79.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Iribarne A, Russo MJ, Easterwood R, Hong KN, Yang J, Cheema FH, et al. Minimally-invasive versus sternotomy approach for mitral valve surgery: a propensity analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;90(5):1471–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Modi P, Rodriguez E, Hargrove WC, Hassan A, Szeto WY, Chitwood WR. Minimally-invasive video-assisted mitral valve surgery: A 12-year, 2-center experience in 1178 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137(6):1481–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Formigari R, Di Donato RM, Mazzera E, Carotti A, Rinelli G, Parisi F, et al. Minimally-invasive or interventional repair of atrial septal defects in children: experience in 171 cases and comparison with conventional strategies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37(6):1707–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Stamou SC, Jablonski KA, Pfister AJ, Hill PC, Dullum MKC, Bafi AS, et al. Stroke after conventional versus minimally-invasive coronary artery bypass. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;74(2):394–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Allen KB, Matheny RG, Robison RJ, Heimansohn DA, Shaar CJ. Minimally-invasive versus conventional reoperative coronary artery bypass. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;64(3):616–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Felger JE, Chitwood R, Nifong LW, Holbert D. Evolution of mitral valve surgery: toward a totally endoscopic approach. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72(4):1203–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Han FT, Kasirajan V, Kowalski M, Kiser R, Wolfe L, Kalahasty G, et al. Results of a minimally-invasive surgical pulmonary vein isolation and ganglionic plexi ablation for atrial fibrillation single-center experience with 12-month follow-up. Circul Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2009;2(4):370-U85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Galloway AC, Schwartz CF, Ribakove GH, Crooke GA, Gogoladze G, Ursomanno P, et al. A decade of minimally-invasive mitral repair: long-term outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88(4):1180–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Woo YJ, Nacke EA. Robotic minimally-invasive mitral valve reconstruction yields less blood product transfusion and shorter length of stay. Surgery. 2006;140(2):263–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Holzhey DM, Jacobs S, Mochalski M, Merk D, Walther T, Mohr FW, et al. Minimally-invasive hybrid coronary artery revascularization. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;86(6):1856–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Navia JL, Atik FA, Grimm RA, Garcia M, Vega PR, Myhre U, et al. Minimally-invasive left ventricular epicardial lead placement: surgical techniques for heart failure resynchronization therapy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79(5):1536–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Reicher B, Poston RS, Mehra MR, Joshi A, Odonkor P, Kon Z, et al. Simultaneous “hybrid” percutaneous coronary intervention and minimally-invasive surgical bypass grafting: Feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes. Am Heart J. 2008;155(4):661–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Reeves BC, Angelini GD, Bryan AJ, Taylor FC, Cripps T, Spyt TJ, et al. A multi-centre randomised controlled trial of minimally-invasive direct coronary bypass grafting versus percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty with stenting for proximal stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(16):1-+.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Santana O, Reyna J, Grana R, Buendia M, Lamas GA, Lamelas J. Outcomes of minimally-invasive valve surgery versus standard sternotomy in obese patients undergoing isolated valve surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91(2):406–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Bichell DP, Balaguer JM, Aranki SF, Couper GS, Adams DH, Rizzo RJ, et al. Axilloaxillary cardiopulmonary bypass: a practical alternative to femorofemoral bypass. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;64(3):702–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Thiele H, Neumann-Schniedewind P, Jacobs S, Boudriot E, Walther T, Mohr FW, et al. Randomized comparison of minimally-invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery versus sirolimus-eluting stenting in isolated proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(25):2324–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Morgan JA, Thornton BA, Peacock JC, Hollingsworth KW, Smith CR, Oz MC, et al. Does robotic technology make minimally-invasive cardiac surgery too expensive? A hospital cost analysis of robotic and conventional techniques. J Card Surg. 2005;20(3):246–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. McVeigh ER, Guttman MA, Lederman RJ, Li M, Kocaturk O, Hunt T, et al. Real-time interactive MRI-guided cardiac surgery: aortic valve replacement using a direct apical approach. Magn Reson Med. 2006;56(5):958–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Sharony R, Grossi EA, Saunders PC, Schwartz CF, Ribakove GH, Baumann FG, et al. Propensity score analysis of a six-year experience with minimally-invasive isolated aortic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis. 2004;13(6):887–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Andersen HR, Knudsen LL, Hasenkam JM. Transluminal implantation of artificial heart valves. Description of a new expandable aortic valve and initial results with implantation by catheter technique in closed chest pigs. Eur Heart J. 1992;13(5):704–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H, Bash A, Borenstein N, Tron C, Bauer F, et al. Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: first human case description. Circulation. 2002;106(24):3006–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Ahmad SJS, Ahmed AR, Exadaktylos AK, McWhinnie D, Nickel F, Hakky SM, et al. Systematic review on citation classics in minimally-invasive gastrointestinal surgery. J Minimal Access Surg. 2018;14(4):265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Royal Victoria Hospital, 274 Grosvenor Road, Belfast, BT12 6BA, UK

    Rickesh Bharat Karsan & Gwyn William Beattie

  2. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospital Wales, Cardiff, CF14 4XW, UK

    Rhian Allen

  3. Division of Cancer and Genetics, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, CF14 4XW, UK

    Arfon Powell

  4. Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, CF14 4XW, UK

    Arfon Powell

Authors
  1. Rickesh Bharat Karsan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rhian Allen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arfon Powell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gwyn William Beattie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RBK—conception, review of papers, design, analysis, interpretation of data, drafted and revision of manuscript. RA—Acquisition, review of papers, interpretation, drafting manuscript. AP—Conception and design. GWB—Supervision, review of papers, drafting and revision of manuscript. All authors have approved submission personally accountable for the author's own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rickesh Bharat Karsan.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karsan, R.B., Allen, R., Powell, A. et al. Minimally-invasive cardiac surgery: a bibliometric analysis of impact and force to identify key and facilitating advanced training. J Cardiothorac Surg 17, 236 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-022-01988-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-022-01988-3

Keywords

Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery

ISSN: 1749-8090

Contact us