ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2021
A prospective comparative study of thoracoscopic transareolar and uniportal approaches for young male patients with primary spontaneous pneumothorax.
Article in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2021. 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.
- Periareolar approach in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for right middle lobectomy: a novel technique.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Trial
- Analysis of the safety and feasibility of subcutaneous areolar tunnel single-port thoracoscopic radical resection for lung cancer: a retrospective cohort study.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn this study, we introduce a novel approach, thoracoscopic transareolar bullectomy, for treating young male patients with primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP). This approach might be less invasive and cosmetically superior to existing methods. We also prospectively compared transareolar and uniportal approaches.
methodsBetween April 2018 and July 2019, 40 patients were prospectively assigned to transareolar (n = 21) and uniportal (n = 19) groups. We compared patient characteristics and perioperative results. Approximately 1 week or 1 year after the operation, postoperative pain was evaluated using a numerical rating scale (NRS), and cosmetic satisfaction was graded on a four-point scale.
resultsWe found no significant between-group differences in patient characteristics or perioperative results. NRS scores did not differ on postoperative day (POD) 7 (transareolar, 1.8 ± 0.9 vs. uniportal, 1.6 ± 0.9; p = 0.62) or in postoperative month (POM) 12 (transareolar, 1.3 ± 0.5 vs. uniportal, 1.1 ± 0.5; p = 0.18). In terms of cosmetic satisfaction, the transareolar group was more satisfied on POD 7 (transareolar, 3.5 ± 0.6 vs. uniportal, 2.9 ± 0.9; p = 0.02) and in POM 12 (transareolar, 3.8 ± 0.5 vs. uniportal, 3.3 ± 0.9; p = 0.0065).
conclusionAlthough the perioperative results of the transareolar and uniportal approaches were similar, the former approach afforded a little better cosmetic satisfaction and might be useful option for young males with PSP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34145507What 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.