ArticleThoracic cancer2021
Comparison of perioperative and survival outcomes between sublobar resection and lobectomy of patients who underwent a second pulmonary resection.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effectiveness and safety of computed tomography-guided hook-wire localization for secondary video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a retrospective study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Comparison of perioperative and survival outcomes between sublobar resection and lobectomy of patients who underwent a second pulmonary resection.Thoracic cancer · 2021Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRepeat pulmonary resection is widely accepted in clinical practice. This study aimed to compare sublobar resection (segmentectomy or wedge resection) with lobectomy in the treatment of patients who underwent a second pulmonary resection.
methodsThis study retrospectively included patients who underwent lobectomy or sublobar resection for second pulmonary resection. 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance selection bias. Clinicopathological features, perioperative and survival outcomes of lobectomy and sublobar resection were compared.
resultsA total of 308 patients who underwent second pulmonary resection were identified: 71 (23.1%) who underwent lobectomy and 237 (76.9%) who underwent sublobar resection. After PSM, 58 patients for each group were selected with well-balanced clinicopathological characteristics. In patients who underwent sublobar resection, significantly shorter chest tube duration (days) (median, 4 vs. 2, p < 0.001) and postoperative hospital stay (days) (median, 6 vs. 4, p < 0.001) were observed. There was no significant difference in overall survival between these two groups after the second and first surgery (p = 0.65, p = 0.98), respectively. Subgroup analysis according to the type of the first resection showed consistent results.
conclusionsSublobar resection may be considered as an alternative option for second pulmonary resection due to its perioperative advantages and similar survival outcomes compared with lobectomy.
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.