BenettiFJBallesterC. Use of thoracoscopy and a minimal thoracotomy, in mammary-coronary bypass to left anterior descending artery, without extracorporeal circulation. Experience in 2 cases. J Cardiovasc Surg1995; 36: 159–161.
BonattiJRehmanASchwartzK, et al. Robotic totally endoscopic triple coronary artery bypass grafting on the arrested heart: report of the first successful clinical case. Heart Surg Forum2010; 13: E394–E396.
12.
BonattiJWehmanBde BiasiAR, et al. Totally endoscopic quadruple coronary artery bypass grafting is feasible using robotic technology. Ann Thorac Surg2012; 93: e111–e112.
13.
KitaharaHHiraiTNathanS, et al. First report of a hybrid robotic beating-heart quadruple totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass: toward complete revascularization. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2019; 56: 1011–1013.
14.
RogersCAPikeKAngeliniGD, et al. An open randomized controlled trial of median sternotomy versus anterolateral left thoracotomy on morbidity and health care resource use in patients having off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: the Sternotomy Versus Thoracotomy (STET) trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2013; 146: 306–316.
15.
AshrafS. Inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass: mechanisms involved and possible therapeutic strategies. Chest1997; 112: 676–692.
16.
van den EyndeJBomhalsKNoéD, et al. Revascularization strategies in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg2022; 34: 947–957.
17.
de Oliveira SáMPBFerrazPEEscobarRR, et al. Skeletonized versus pedicled internal thoracic artery and risk of sternal wound infection after coronary bypass surgery: meta-analysis and meta-regression of 4817 patients. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg2013; 16: 849–857.
18.
GaudinoMAudisioKRahoumaM, et al. Comparison of long-term clinical outcomes of skeletonized vs pedicled internal thoracic artery harvesting techniques in the Arterial Revascularization Trial. JAMA Cardiol2021; 6: 1380–1386.
19.
FerdinandFDMacDonaldJKBalkhyHH, et al. Endoscopic conduit harvest in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: an ISMICS Systematic Review and Consensus Conference Statements. Innovations2017; 12: 301–319.
20.
PlicnerDStolinskiJRzucidło-ResilJ, et al. Systemic inflammatory response after off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: comparison of median sternotomy and minimally invasive techniques. Przegl Lek2017; 6: 237–240.
21.
BurkhartCSDell-KusterSGamberiniM, et al. Modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors for postoperative delirium after cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth2010; 24: 555–559.
22.
MinJJNamKKimTK, et al. Relationship between early postoperative C-reactive protein elevation and long-term postoperative major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a retrospective study. Br J Anaesth2014; 113: 391–401.
23.
ZhouXDudleySCJr.Evidence for inflammation as a driver of atrial fibrillation. Front Cardiovasc Med2020; 7: 62.
24.
SheikhiMAEbadiAShahriaryA, et al. Cardiac surgery anesthesia and systemic inflammatory response. Int J Bioassays2015; 4: 3648–3655.
25.
EngelmanDTBen AliWWilliamsJB, et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in cardiac surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society recommendations. JAMA Surg2019; 154: 755–766.
26.
HoogmaDFCroonenRAl TmimiL, et al. Association between improved compliance with enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery guidelines and postoperative outcomes: a retrospective studyt. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. Epub ahead of print 19 July 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.07.010.
27.
PostonRSTranRCollinsM, et al. Comparison of economic and patient outcomes with minimally invasive versus traditional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting techniques. Ann Surg2008; 248: 638–646.
28.
NesbittJJMoriGMason-AppsC, et al. Comparison of early and late quality of life between left anterior thoracotomy and median sternotomy off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. Perfusion2017; 32: 50–56.
29.
GuoMHWellsGAGlineurD, et al. Minimally Invasive coronary surgery compared to STernotomy coronary artery bypass grafting: the MIST trial. Contemp Clin Trials2019; 78: 140–145.
30.
BonattiJRamahiJHasanF, et al. Long-term results after robotically assisted coronary bypass surgery. Ann Cardiothorac Surg2016; 5: 556–562.
31.
BalkhyHHNisivacoSKitaharaH, et al. Robotic off-pump totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass in the current era: report of 544 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2022; 61: 439–446.
32.
KoflerMSchachnerTReinstadlerSJ, et al. Comparative analysis of perioperative and mid-term results of TECAB and MIDCAB for revascularization of anterior wall. Innovations2017; 12: 207–213.
33.
CernySOosterlinckWOnanB, et al. Robotic cardiac surgery in Europe: status 2020. Front Cardiovasc Med2022; 8: 827515.
34.
KiaiiBTeefyP. Hybrid coronary artery revascularization: a review and current evidence. Innovations2019; 14: 394–404.
35.
HalkosMERabSTVassiliadesTA, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass for the treatment of left main coronary stenosis. Ann Thorac Surg2011; 92: 2155–2160.
36.
PatelNCHemliJMKimMC, et al. Short- and intermediate-term outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization for double-vessel disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2018; 156: 1799–1807.
37.
KitaharaHHiraiTMcCroreyM, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization: midterm outcomes of robotic multivessel bypass and percutaneous interventions. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2019; 157: 1829–1836.
38.
BonarosNSchachnerTKoflerM, et al. Advanced hybrid closed chest revascularization: an innovative strategy for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2014; 46: e94–e102.
