ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2019
Is single-port video-assisted thoracic surgery for mediastinal cystectomy feasible?
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Approaches to single port mediastinal surgery.Asian cardiovascular & thoracic annals · 2026Review
- Single-Center Experience of Management of Mediastinal Cyst-A Case Series.Surgery journal (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- Single-port VATS combined with non-indwelling drain in ERAS: a retrospective study.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2021Article
- Robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for mediastinal masses: a single-institution experience.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVideo-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) for mediastinal cysts has been used with increasing frequency. Both single-port VATS and three-port VATS procedures are used for mediastinal cystectomy. Few studies have been published to compare three-port VATS and single-port VATS procedures in mediastinal cystectomy.
methodsForty-five patients with mediastinal cysts who underwent single-port procedures (n = 23) or three-port procedures (n = 22) in our department from January 2016 to July 2018 were retrospectively analysed. The perioperative conditions and pathological findings were analysed.
resultsThe single-port group showed shorter operation times [45 (35-60) vs 55 (45-80) min, p = 0.013], less retention time of the thoracic drainage tube [27(24-48) vs 48(48-70) p < 0.001)], shorter postoperative hospital stays [5(4-6) vs 7(5-7), p = 0.011] and less costs [2.0)1.2-2.5) vs 2.5(1.9-3.5), p = 0.032] than those of the three-port group. No difference was found in case conversions to open procedures (p > 0.99) or second operations (p > 0.99). Logistic regression analysis showed that the surgical method (p = 0.426) and surgeon experience (p = 0.719) were not independent prognostic factors for the success of surgery.
conclusionsThe single-port VATS procedure was not inferior to the three-port VATS procedure for mediastinal cystectomy. The single-port VATS procedure is a feasible choice for mediastinal cystectomy.
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.