ArticleBMC surgery2021
Single-port thoracoscopic anatomic resection for chronic inflammatory lung disease.
Article in BMC surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Uniportal versus multiportal video-assisted thoracoscopic segmentectomy for non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgery today · 2023Pooled it
- Safety, efficacy, and postoperative pulmonary function recovery of uniportal and multiportal thoracoscopic lung segmentectomy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Perioperative Effect of Single-Port Thoracoscopic Segmentectomy and Three-Port Thoracoscopic Segmentectomy in the Treatment of Early Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2023Article
- Enhanced recovery of postoperative nursing for single-port thoracoscopic surgery in lung cancer patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Adjuvant surgical resection for nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease: Effectiveness and complications.Annals of thoracic medicineArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is challenging to proceed thoracoscopic anatomic resection when encountering severe pleural adhesion or calcified peribronchial lymphadenopathy. Compared with multiple-port video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (MP-VATS), how to overcome these challenges in single-port (SP-) VATS is still an intractable problem. In the present study, we reported the surgical results of chronic inflammatory lung disease and shared some useful SP-VATS techniques.
methodsWe retrospectively assessed the surgical results of chronic inflammatory lung disease, primarily bronchiectasis, and mycobacterial infection, at our institution between 2010 and 2018. The patients who underwent SP-VATS anatomic resection were compared with those who underwent MP-VATS procedures. We analyzed the baseline characteristics, perioperative data, and postoperative outcomes, and illustrated four special techniques depending on the situation: flexible hook electrocautery, hilum-first technique, application of Satinsky vascular clamp, and staged closure of bronchial stump method.
resultsWe classified 170 consecutive patients undergoing thoracoscopic anatomic resection into SP and MP groups, which had significant between-group differences in operation time and overall complication rate (P = 0.037 and 0.018, respectively). Compared to the MP-VATS group, the operation time of SP-VATS was shorter, and the conversion rate of SP-VATS was relatively lower (3.1% vs. 10.5%, P = 0.135). The most common complication was prolonged air leakage (SP-VATS, 10.8%; MP-VATS, 2.9%, P = 0.045).
conclusionsFor chronic inflammatory lung disease, certain surgical techniques render SP-VATS anatomic resection feasible and safe with a lower conversion rate.
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.