Key result
Minimally invasive coronary surgery offers potential advantages over conventional bypass and angioplasty, but its ultimate role and efficacy must be determined by future prospective randomized trials.
An editorial discussing the initial enthusiasm and subsequent skepticism regarding minimally invasive coronary surgery.
Minimally invasive coronary surgery is a radical modification of conventional coronary artery bypass surgery and is performed through a small thoracotomy, the surgeon anastomosing the left internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending artery without the use of either cardiopulmonary bypass or cardioplegic arrest.1 2 Since its description in 1994,1 few new techniques in cardiac surgery have aroused such interest or had such a rapid diffusion. Initial enthusiasm, however, has been followed by a wave of scepticism. As the indications for minimally invasive coronary surgery become clearer it is time for a calmer apraisal. Initial enthusiasm for the technique arose because it avoided the need for cardiopulmonary bypass3 and provided an opportunity to reduce the use of health- care resources. Inevitably there were early failures, and some investigators began to highlight …
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
P.W. Boonstra (1998) conducted an editorial in Coronary artery disease. Minimally invasive coronary surgery vs. Conventional coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty was evaluated. Minimally invasive coronary surgery offers potential advantages over conventional bypass and angioplasty, but its ultimate role and efficacy must be determined by future prospective randomized trials.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: