ArticleGland surgery2021
Comparing the safety and efficacy of thoracoscopic surgery and thoracotomy for thymoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Gland surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Should minimally invasive surgery be the standard approach for early-stage thymoma? A 20-year experience.JTCVS techniques · 2025Article
- Review
- Drainology: Leveraging research in chest-drain management to enhance recovery after cardiothoracic surgery.JTCVS techniques · 2024Article
- Elective video-assisted thoracic surgery for a ruptured mature mediastinal teratoma: A case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo systematically evaluate the efficacy of thoracoscopic surgery compared to traditional thoracotomy for thymic tumors.
methodsWe performed a literature search on computer of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine (CBM), WanFang, and China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI) databases from the date of establishment of the database to April 2021, and retrieved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies on thoracoscopic surgery and thoracotomy with conventional open thoracic surgery. After independent screening of the literature by two assessors, the relevant data was extracted and the risk of bias in the included studies was evaluated. RevMan 5.3 software was used to perform the analysis.
resultsFive RCTs and eight cohort studies were ultimately included, with a total of 1,093 patients. The results of meta-analysis showed that compared with traditional thoracoscopic surgery, thoracoscopy had shorter surgery duration (OR =22.2, 95% CI: -31.92, -12.52, P<0.00001), ICU stay (OR =0.29, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.42, P<0.00001), and hospitalization time (OR =0.531, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.69, P<0.00001) times, as well as reduced chest tube drainage time (OR =0.49, 95% CI: 0.33, 0.73, P=0.0004), less intraoperative bleeding (OR =43.27, 95% CI: -50.94, -35.60, P<0.00001), and a lower incidence of postoperative complications (OR =0.19, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.34, P<0.00001). However, the tumor recurrence rate was not significantly different between the two procedures (OR =0.69, 95% CI: 0.32, 1.48, P=0.34). DISCUSSION: The existing evidence suggests that thoracoscopic surgery has shorter surgery duration, ICU stay time, hospitalization time, reduced thoracic tube drainage, less intraoperative bleeding, and a lower incidence of postoperative complications compared with traditional thoracotomy surgery. However, due to the poor quality of the included research, more high-quality studies need to be conducted to verify the above conclusions.
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.