ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2020
Feasibility investigation of uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection for pulmonary sequestration.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulmonary sequestration with a rare renal artery subtype: a comprehensive clinicopathological analysis of 20 pediatric cases.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2026Article
- The utility of three-dimensional computed tomography bronchography and angiography technology in pulmonary sequestration surgery.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Imaging and pathological characteristics, treatment, and prognosis of pulmonary sequestration-A retrospective study of 13 cases.The clinical respiratory journal · 2023Article
- Pulmonary sequestration in adult patients: a single-center retrospective study.Respiratory research · 2023Article
- Three-dimensional CT angiography facilitates uniportal thoracoscopic anatomic lung resection for pulmonary sequestration: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUniportal video-assisted thoracic surgery (UVATS) technique has been increasingly used for many thoracic diseases. Whether UVATS has equivalent or better perioperative outcomes for pulmonary sequestration (PS) patients remains controversial. Our study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of UVATS in anatomical lung resection for pulmonary sequestration.
methodsA total of 24 patients with PS including fifteen males and nine females with the mean age of 40 (range, 18-65) years old, who had received completely UVATS anatomical lung resection for PS in Nanjing Chest Hospital between January 2016 and December 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Related clinical data were retrieved from hospital records and analyzed.
resultsAll 24 patients had been treated with the UAVTS approach successfully without aberrant artery ruptured or massive hemorrhage, and no patients died during the perioperative period. Overall mean surgery time was 102 mins (range, 55-150 min), the mean blood loss was 94 ml (range, 10-300 ml), the mean days of chest tube maintained were 4 days (range,1-10 days), and the mean postoperative hospitalization days was 6 days (range,2-11 days). All patients were cured, without cough, fever, hemoptysis, and so on, associated with PS, occurring during the average follow-up of 17 months (range, 3-35 months).
conclusionsOur preliminary results revealed that anatomical lung resection by UVATS is a safe and feasible mini-invasive technique for PS patients, which might be associated with less postoperative pain, reduced paresthesia, better cosmetic results, and faster recovery.
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.