ArticleSurgical endoscopy2013
Transoral endoscopic surgery versus conventional thoracoscopic surgery for thoracic intervention: safety and efficacy in a canine survival model.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- C-reactive protein: quantitative marker of surgical trauma and post-surgical complications in dogs: a systematic review.Acta veterinaria Scandinavica · 2015Pooled it
- The evolution of operative access in lung surgery.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2021Review
- Comparison of acute phase protein and hemodynamic variables in dogs undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic vs. open pneumonectomy.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2017Article
- Asian perspectives in thoracic surgery: clinical innovation in Taiwan.Journal of thoracic disease · 2016Review
- [Evolution and Development Trend of Lung Cancer Surgical Incision].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2016Review
- Subxiphoid single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.Journal of visualized surgery · 2016Article
- Embryonic NOTES thoracic sympathectomy for palmar hyperhidrosis: results of a novel technique and comparison with the conventional VATS procedure.Surgical endoscopy · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTransoral endoscopic surgery has been shown to be feasible and safe in both humans and animal models. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of transoral and conventional thoracoscopy for thoracic exploration, surgical lung biopsy, and pericardial window creation.
methodsThe animals (n = 20) were randomly assigned to the transoral endoscopic approach group (n = 10) or conventional thoracoscopic approach group (n = 10). Transoral thoracoscopy was performed with a flexible bronchoscope via an incision over the vestibulum oris. In conventional thoracoscopy, access to the thoracic cavity was obtained through a thoracic incision. Surgical outcomes (body weight, operating time, operative complications, and time to resumption of normal diet), physiologic parameters (respiratory rate, body temperature), inflammatory parameters [white blood cell (WBC) counts and C-reactive protein (CRP)], and pulmonary parameters (arterial blood gases) were compared for both procedures.
resultsThe surgical lung biopsy and pericardial window creation were successfully performed in all animals except one animal in the transoral group. There was no significant difference in operating times between the groups. The increase in WBC in the transoral thoracoscopy group was significantly smaller on postoperative day 1 than in the conventional thoracoscopy group (p = 0.0029). The transoral group had an earlier return to preoperative body temperature (p = 0.041) and respiratory rate (p = 0.045) on day 7. With respect to pulmonary parameters, there was no significant difference in blood pH, pCO2, or PaCO2 between the transoral and transthoracic groups. All animals survived without complications 14 days after surgery.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated that the transoral approach was comparable to conventional thoracoscopic surgery for lung biopsy and pericardial window creation in terms of safety and efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.