Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31463106›Full record

ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2019

Multiportal subxiphoid thoracoscopic major pulmonary resections.

Karel Pfeuty, Bernard Lenot

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Karel PfeutyDepartment of Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Hôpital Yves Le Foll, Saint-Brieuc, France.
Bernard LenotDepartment of Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Hôpital Yves Le Foll, Saint-Brieuc, France.
Yves Rocher (France) · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNew subxiphoid video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (SVATS) approaches are emerging for major pulmonary resection. The underlying concept is to reduce invasiveness and morbidity, by minimising intercostal nerve trauma, without any concession on safety and carcinologic issues. This study describes and evaluates our initial experience in multiportal SVATS, compared to conventional VATS (CVATS).

methodsBetween June 2016 and October 2017, 75 consecutive patients underwent major pulmonary resection with an original multiportal SVATS approach developed through a single or double access under the costal arch, unsystematically associated with intercostal ports for 5-mm instruments only. We retrospectively compared results of this SVATS group (n=75) against an historic CVATS group (n=75).

resultsFifty-one lobectomies, 20 segmentectomies and 4 pneumonectomies were achieved through multiportal SVATS. Sixty-eight malignant lesions and 7 benign lesions were noted. All patients with primary lung cancer underwent R0 resection and complete lymphadenectomy, with 11% of clinical N0 upstaging. When compared, the SVATS and CVATS groups were similar in terms of demographics and pathology. No statistical differences were observed in terms of conversion (9%

conclusionsMultiportal SVATS is a safe, carcinologic and reproducible approach for major pulmonary resection. By avoiding intercostal strains, it enables a high compliance to opioid-free analgesic protocol, contributing to significantly shorter hospitalisation and better recovery, compared to CVATS.

Indexed as

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS)multiportalsubxiphoidVideo-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS)

Identifiers

PMID31463106
PMCPMC6688034
OpenAlexW2963025729

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.