ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2022
Totally thoracoscopic versus standard VATS lobectomies: perioperative differences.
Article in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive surgery is considered the gold standard approach for early stage lung cancer. Techniques range from a standard three-port approach to uniportal lobectomies, with no technique emerging as superior thus far. We retrospectively compared the pain outcomes of a standard approach using a utility incision with a totally thoracoscopic technique.
methodsBetween January 2015 and December 2019, 168 patients received a VATS lobectomy in our centers. Two groups were created, Group A (82 patients, totally thoracoscopic approach) and Group B (86 patients, standard approach with utility incision). Perioperative outcomes, such as operative time, complications, length of stay, perioperative and chronic pain using visual analog scale (VAS), and rescue doses of painkillers were examined. A one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to investigate the impact of surgical time and days of drainage on VAS score.
resultsPain was less on postoperative day (POD) 1 and 2 (p = 0.025 and p = 0.020, respectively) in Group A. No differences were found in the baseline and perioperative characteristics of the two groups, in the mean VAS score at 1 month (p = 0.429), 1 year (p = 0.561), doses of NSAIDs (p = 0.609), and chronic pain (3vs7 patients, p = 0.220). The ANCOVA test showed no significant effect of surgical time and days of drainage on VAS score (p > 0.05).
conclusionsIn our experience, a totally thoracoscopic approach may improve acute postoperative pain without compromising the oncological results of the procedure and the safety of the patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35226297What 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.