Why the study?
Minimally invasive options for CABG have advanced dramatically, but they remain limited to specialised centres and have not been widely adopted by cardiac surgeons.
Minimally invasive CABG techniques provide alternative revascularization options with aesthetic and recovery benefits, though widespread adoption is hindered by technical complexity and steep learning curves.
May warrant use only in specialized centers; leaves open need for RCTs to assess broader safety and efficacy.
Minimally invasive options for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery progressed dramatically in the last decades. Minimally invasive CABG surgery is presented trough these forms: minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB), endoscopic atraumatic coronary artery bypass (EndoACAB), robot-assisted direct coronary artery bypass (RADCAB), total endoscopic coronary artery bypass (TECAB), and hybrid coronary revascularisation (HCR). Unfortunately, these are still limited only to the specialised centres across the world and have not been accepted by the majority of cardiac surgeons. A surgeon who is starting to practice minimally invasive CABG surgery needs to be ready for long duration of the interventions, higher rate of conversions to sternotomy and significant learning curve. Excellent results that have been published on the subject of minimally invasive revascularisation methods support the potential of these alternative approaches to evolve in the near future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Todić et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: