ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2023
Number of dye marks required in virtual-assisted lung mapping.
Article in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraoperative Nodule Localization in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Existing and Emerging Techniques.Cancers · 2026Review
- Efficacy and safety of virtual-assisted lung mapping using dual staining with indigo carmine and indocyanine green in sublobar lung resection: a single-arm prospective cohort study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Current Status and Future Perspectives of Preoperative and Intraoperative Marking in Thoracic Surgery.Cancers · 2024Review
- Ten-Year Outcome and Development of Virtual-Assisted Lung Mapping in Thoracic Surgery.Cancers · 2023Review
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
objectivesVirtual-assisted lung mapping is a preoperative bronchoscopic multi-spot dye-marking technique used in sublobar lung resection for hardly palpable lung nodules. However, the number of marks required per nodule remains unknown. Therefore, we examined the correlation between the number of intraoperative visible marks and the successful resection rate.
methodsWe retrospectively examined 210 consecutive patients with 256 lesions who underwent virtual-assisted lung mapping during January 2014-December 2020 at our hospital. When a nodule was not resected at the initial attempt, or when a nodule was very close to the cut margin in the resected specimen and required additional resection, we categorized it as unsuccessful resection. We divided 256 lesions into successful and unsuccessful groups and compared the numbers of intraoperative visible marks between the two groups.
resultsOf 797 attempted marks, 738 (92.4%) were visible during the surgery. Fourteen (5.4%) of 256 lesions were determined to be unsuccessful according to the study criteria. There was a remarkable difference in the average numbers of intraoperative visible marks between both groups (3 [interquartile range: 2-4] vs. 2 [interquartile range: 1-2.8]; p < 0.01). Multivariable logistic analysis revealed a significant difference in the number of intraoperative visible marks (odds ratio: 0.28, 95% confidence interval: 0.14-0.57; p < 0.001) between both groups.
conclusionsSuccessful sublobar lung resection requires three or more intraoperative visible marks established using virtual-assisted lung mapping per lung nodule.
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.