Comparison of outcomes between minimally invasive and median sternotomy for double and triple valve surgery: A meta-analysis

Background

Limited data exists demonstrating the efficacy of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared to median sternotomy (MS) for multiple valvular disease (MVD). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare operative and peri-operative outcomes of MIS vs MS in MVD.

Methods

PubMed, Ovid, and Embase were searched from inception until August 2019 for randomized and observational studies comparing MIS and MS in patients with MVD. Clinical outcomes of intra- and postoperative times, reoperation for bleeding and surgical site infection were evaluated.

Results

Five observational studies comparing 340 MIS vs 414 MS patients were eligible for qualitative and quantitative review. The quality of evidence assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was good for all included studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated increased cardiopulmonary bypass time for MIS patients (weighted mean difference [WMD], 0.487; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.365-0.608; P < .0001). Similarly, aortic cross-clamp time was longer in patients undergoing MIS (WMD, 0.632; 95% CI, 0.509-0.755; P < .0001). No differences were found in operative mortality, reoperation for bleeding, surgical site infection, or hospital stay.

Conclusions

MIS for MVD have similar short-term outcomes compared to MS. This adds value to the use of minimally invasive methods for multivalvular surgery, despite conferring longer operative times. However, the paucity in literature and learning curve associated with MIS warrants further evidence, ideally randomized control trials, to support these findings.

     

Are primary care physicians ill equipped to evaluate and treat childhood physical inactivity?

ABSTRACT

Objective

To investigate primary care physician clinical practice patterns, barriers, and education surrounding pediatric physical activity (PA), and to compare practice patterns by discipline.     

Investigating the Association Between Internet Health Information Use and Patient Willingness to Communicate with Health Care Providers

ABSTRACT

Communication between health professionals and patients is an intergroup phenomenon where the health professional has the most power and status. Over the past few decades, there has been a steady increase in the availability to patients of information about healthcare and specific diseases on the Internet. In this paper, we ask whether the use of Internet health information assists patients to manage their consultations with health professionals better and whether it alters the intergroup dynamic by providing a more equal status for patients. In this study 370 participants from Australia and Canada completed a survey that included a ‘willingness to communicate with health professionals’ scale. They also commented on their use and trust of Internet health information. Thematic analysis suggests that patients’ use of Internet health information serves as a broker between patients and their health provider in health consultations. We discuss the implications of these findings for health practitioners as they address how easier Internet access influences patient interactions with health professionals. We consider future research directions these finding provide in explaining communication behaviour in this context.