New Surgical Techniques and Surgical Site Infections
Author Information
Author(s): Steven M. Gordon
Primary Institution: Cleveland Clinic Foundation
Hypothesis
The study evaluates the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgical techniques.
Conclusion
Minimally invasive cardiac surgery shows no significant difference in the incidence of surgical site infections compared to traditional open heart surgery.
Supporting Evidence
- Minimally invasive surgical techniques have dramatically affected many surgical subspecialties since their introduction.
- Conversion rates for minimally invasive cardiac surgery procedures have declined substantially with increasing experience.
- 32% of patients with implantable left ventricular assist devices had a device-associated infection.
Takeaway
Doctors are using new, less invasive surgery methods that help patients heal faster, and these methods don't seem to cause more infections than older surgeries.
Methodology
The study reviewed surgical outcomes from minimally invasive cardiac surgery procedures at the Cleveland Clinic.
Potential Biases
High volumes may reflect selection bias by patient referrals to institutions and surgeons with good outcomes.
Limitations
There is no internationally accepted case definition for minimally invasive cardiac surgery.
Participant Demographics
Patients undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery at the Cleveland Clinic.
Statistical Information
Statistical Significance
p>0.05
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website