ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2023
Efficacy of Using Maryland Forceps Versus Electrocoagulation Hooks in RATS Lung Cancer Surgery: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2023. 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.
- Total-port vs. utility-incision robotic pulmonary segmentectomy: a propensity score-based analysis of 418 patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- The use of energy devices for dividing the cutting plane in sublobectomy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundHere we compare the difference in recent outcomes between the use of Maryland forceps (MF) and electrocoagulation hooks (EH) in robotic-assisted thoracoscopic radical lung cancer resection. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe retrospectively analyze the clinical data of 247 patients with lung cancer who underwent robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery from February 2018 to December 2022. On the basis of the intraoperative use of energy devices, we divided the clinical data into two groups, including 84 cases in the MF group and 163 cases in the EH group, respectively. The patients in the two groups were matched with propensity score matching analysis, and further, the perioperative clinical data of the two groups were compared.
resultsCompared with the EH group, patients in the MF group had shorter operative time, lesser intraoperative bleeding, shorter postoperative drainage time, and shorter postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.05). By comparing the intraoperative and postoperative complications in the two groups, it was found that the incidence of intraoperative lymph node fragmentation, the incidence of postoperative celiac disease, and the incidence of postoperative food choking were significantly lower in the MF group than that in the EH group. The increase of CRP, IL-6, IL-8, and TNF-α levels in the MF group was less than that in the EH group.
conclusionsThe use of MF in robotic-assisted thoracoscopic radical lung cancer surgery is safe and effective, with advantages in lymph node dissection, reduced surgical trauma, and fewer postoperative complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37394667What 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.