ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2019
Feasibility and validity of double-arm specimen extraction method after partial lung resection in single-port thoracoscopic surgery.
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The clinical effect of thoracoscopic segmentectomy in the treatment of lung malignancies less than 2CM in diameter.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Enhanced recovery of postoperative nursing for single-port thoracoscopic surgery in lung cancer patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
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
backgroundFew previous reports have evaluated lung specimen extraction method or how to improve lung specimen extraction method, especially with single-port thoracoscopic surgery. We evaluated the feasibility and surgical advantages of double-arm lung specimen extraction method by comparing double-arm
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed data for 268 patients undergoing partial lung resection via single-port thoracoscopy and specimen extraction using a specimen extractor in the Union Medical College Hospital of Fujian Medical University from November 2017 to June 2018. We divided patients into groups based on the specimen location as an upper-lobe group (group I), lower-lobe group (group II), and lung-segment group (group III). We then performed a subgroup analysis based on the degree of collapse of the lung lobe specimens during extraction as follows: good in group IA and IIA, and poor in group IB and IIB.
resultsThe double-arm method required statistically significantly less time than the single-arm method: (69.6±31.9
conclusionsIn single-port thoracoscopic partial lung resection, double-arm specimen extraction method is more convenient and can shorten sample extraction time, especially for upper- and lower-lung lobes with poor degree of collapse. Double-arm specimen extraction method is feasible and effective after single-port thoracoscopic partial lung resection.
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.