ArticleTranslational cancer research2021
Effect and feasibility of uniportal thoracoscopic surgery in the treatment of early-stage lung cancer in a primary hospital.
Article in Translational cancer research, 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.
- Comparative analysis of the clinical effects of different thoracoscopic resection in the treatment of Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
- Beyond the limits: journey to feasible and safe uniportal VATS surgery for lung cancer.Journal of thoracic disease · 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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThoracoscopic radical lobectomy is a routine procedure for radical surgery of lung cancer. Meanwhile, thoracoscopic surgery has been gradually transformed from assisted small incision and multiport thoracoscopic radical surgery to uniportal thoracoscopic surgery for treatment of early-stage lung cancers. However, there are still controversies regarding the efficacy and feasibility of 2 surgical methods. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect and feasibility of uniportal thoracoscopic surgery for treatment of early-stage lung cancer in a primary hospital.
methodsClinical data of 142 patients with early-stage lung cancer were retrospectively chosen in the period from September 2019 to March 2021 in our hospital and divided into 2 groups: a control group (66 patients) with 3-port thoracoscopic radical surgery and an experimental group (76 patients) with uniportal thoracoscopic radical surgery. The baseline clinical data, perioperative clinical data, and lymph node dissection of 2 groups were compared.
resultsThere was no significant difference in baseline general clinical data between 2 groups (P>0.05), and no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications, conversion rate, or operation time between 2 groups (P>0.05). The intraoperative blood loss volume, postoperative chest drainage volume, postoperative hospitalization time, and postoperative catheter time of experimental group were significantly lower than those of control group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the total number of lymph node dissection stations and lymph node dissections, the number of N2 lymph node dissection stations, or N2 lymph node dissections between 2 groups (P>0.05). There was also no significant difference in the number of left and right lymph node dissection stations between 2 groups (P>0.05).
conclusionsCompared with 3-port thoracoscopic radical surgery, uniportal thoracoscopic radical surgery in the treatment of patients with early-stage lung cancer provides the same effect of lymph node dissection and has advantages in reducing surgical trauma and accelerating postoperative rehabilitation, popularizing for use in primary hospitals.
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.