ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2019
Refined risk stratification for thoracoscopic lobectomy or segmentectomy.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- External validation of the eurolung risk model for morbidity using an institutional database on minimally invasive major lung resections.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Robotic Surgery for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treatment in High-Risk Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiven the wide adoption of thoracoscopic lobectomy and positive effect of the thoracoscopic approach for improving postoperative outcomes, questions have arisen regarding the validity of previously published risk assessment models. We sought to review the reliability of the established predictors for patients undergoing thoracoscopic lobectomy.
methodsFrom January 2009 to May 2017, 606 patients (275 women, 331 men; median age 67 years) underwent thoracoscopic lobectomy or segmentectomy for confirmed or suspected early-stage lung cancer or metastasis at our institution. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the predictors of postoperative complications, followed by assessments of causal inference.
resultsThe postoperative mortality, pulmonary complication, cardiovascular complication and overall morbidity rates were 1.0%, 8.9%, 5.8% and 18.0%, respectively. While the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) emerged as an independent morbidity predictor, only a slightly significant association between lung function determinants and overall morbidity was found in the univariable regression analyses. Regarding causal inference, inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity scores revealed 2- and 1.7-fold increases in the odds of cardiopulmonary complications and overall morbidity in patients with ASA-PS grade 3 or 4 compared with those with ASA-PS grade 1 or 2 (OR =2.116, 95% CI: 1.252-3.577, P=0.005; OR =1.740, 95% CI: 1.095-2.765, P=0.019, respectively).
conclusionsOur results suggested that the current physiologic evaluation algorithm is also applicable to major lung resection via thoracoscopic approach. ASA-PS is an easily assessable factor capable of predicting major complications following thoracoscopic lobectomy in patients properly selected in compliance with the current guideline. It is recommended to incorporate the ASA-PS into the existing algorithm for more accurate risk stratification in this patient population.
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.