Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36071767›Full record

ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2022

Lung lobectomy surgical approach and resource utilization differ by anatomic lobe in a statewide discharge registry.

Daniel T DeArmond, Mohammed S Rahman, Stewart R Miller, Christian P Jacobsen, Scott B Johnson, Duy C Nguyen, Nitin A Das

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Daniel T DeArmondDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Division of Thoracic Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Mohammed S RahmanDepartment of Accounting, Information Systems, and Finance, School of Business, Emporia State University, Emporia, KS, USA.
Stewart R MillerDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Division of Thoracic Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Christian P JacobsenDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Division of Thoracic Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Scott B JohnsonDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Division of Thoracic Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Duy C NguyenDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Division of Thoracic Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Nitin A DasDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Division of Thoracic Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Anatomic lobe-specific differences with respect to pulmonary lobectomy have been suggested in the thoracic surgery literature but hard data has been lacking in larger population studies in part due to coding systems that do not distinguish pulmonary lobectomy by anatomic lobe. International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) procedure codes, adopted in the United States in 2015, may provide novel methodologic accessibility for pulmonary lobectomy studies as they classify lobectomy operations by specific anatomic lobe. We queried the Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File (TPUDF) ICD-10 codes for both open and endoscopic approach lobectomy with a specific view to differences based on anatomic lobes. Methods: Between fourth fiscal quarter (Q4) 2015 and Q4 2017, all pulmonary lobectomy operations performed in Texas state-licensed hospitals were identified by querying the TPUDF for ICD-10 procedure codes for pulmonary lobectomy as classified by anatomic lobe. Surgical approach, additional procedures and diagnosis codes, length of hospital stay (LOS), and discharge status were recorded with aggregate values undergoing statistical analysis. Results: Right and left upper versus lower lobe resections were more prevalent however minimally invasive surgery was less commonly performed for upper than right lower lobectomy. LOS, irrespective of surgical approach, was longer for upper versus lower lobe resection as was need for transfer to additional inpatient facilities. LOS was longer and need for additional surgical or procedural interventions days after the primary procedure of lobectomy was greater for right versus left upper lobe resection, suggesting some differential properties of the right versus left pleural space. Conclusions: The marked clinical differences between anatomic lobes in the setting of pulmonary lobectomy observed in this study have the potential to translate to differences in expected hospital and health system costs and surgeon time-expenditure and experience premium that currently have no mechanism for their accounting. These findings highlight the value of ICD-10 coding for analysis of pulmonary lobectomy in administrative databases and suggest a possible path to more informed patient counseling and equitable hospital and surgeon reimbursement based on payment adjustment by anatomic lobe in pulmonary lobectomy operations.

Indexed as

administrative healthcare databaseslung cancerlung cancer surgeryPulmonary lobectomy

Identifiers

PMID36071767
PMCPMC9442514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.