ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Outcome of thoracoscopic anatomical sublobar resection under 3-dimensional computed tomography simulation.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reverse watershed method applied to thoracoscopic S9 segmentectomy: a retrospective study.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Clinical application of three-dimensional reconstruction in anatomical analysis of the right anterior, lateral, and posterior basal segments (RS8, RS9, and RS10) for RS9 segmentectomy.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Article
- Review
- Review
- Thoracoscopic Anatomical Sublobar Resection Including Subsegmentectomy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.World journal of surgery · 2023Article
- Combined basilar subsegmentectomy for intralobar sequestration via uniportal VATS: a case report.Surgical case reports · 2023Article
- Application of three-dimensional computed tomography imaging and reconstructive techniques in lung surgery: A mini-review.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have reported the feasibility and efficacy of thoracoscopic anatomical sublobar resection under three-dimensional computed tomography (3DCT) simulation; however, its long-term outcomes have not been clearly established in primary lung cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of this technique.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed data from 112 consecutive patients with selected clinical stage IA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who underwent thoracoscopic anatomical sublobar resection from 2004 to 2014. This procedure was planned using preoperative 3DCT simulation to ensure sufficient surgical margins and enabled tailor-made surgery for each patient. Patients who had predominantly ground glass opacity lung cancers underwent anatomical sublobar resection as a curative-intent resection. Other patients who were high-risk candidates for lobectomy underwent anatomical sublobar resection as a compromised limited resection.
resultsOf the 112 cases, 82 had a curative-intent resection, while 30 had a compromised limited resection. Recurrence occurred in only 2 cases (1.8%), both of which were in the compromised limited group. A second primary lung cancer was observed in 5 cases (4.5%). Of the 5 patients, 4 underwent surgery for a second cancer and had no recurrence. The 5-year overall survival, lung cancer-specific overall survival, and recurrence-free survival rates were 92.5%, 100%, and 98.2%, respectively, for all cases; 97.6%, 100%, and 100%, respectively, in the curative-intent group; and 75.8%, 100% and 92.6%, respectively, in the compromised limited group.
conclusionsThoracoscopic anatomical sublobar resection under 3DCT simulation may be an acceptable alternative treatment in selected patients with NSCLC. TRIAL AND CLINICAL REGISTRY: Clinical registration number: IRB No. 2020-98 (Dated: 2020.6.30).
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.