ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2023
Extracorporeal life support use in limited lung function: a narrative review.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Right upper lobectomy via selective right upper lobe isolation using a left-sided double-lumen tube placed in the right bronchus intermedius: a case report.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Risk factors, pathogenesis, and botanical drugs interventions for postoperative pulmonary complications after cardiothoracic surgery: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Perioperative Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiac Assistance in Thoracic Surgery: A Scoping Review Protocol.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for general thoracic surgery: case series and narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Review
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: In thoracic surgery, different modalities of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) can be used for cardiorespiratory support in complex scenarios. Decades of learning in clinical practice and physiology associated with technological development led to a great variety of ECLS technologies available. Thoracic surgery procedures with difficult or impossible single lung ventilation may still be performed using different ECLS modalities. The aim of this review is to describe the use of ECLS, with its different modalities, as a solution to perform complex surgeries in a patient with difficult or impossible single lung ventilation. Methods: A literature review was conducted using the terms "extracorporeal life support pulmonary resection" and "extracorporeal life support thoracic surgery", and articles were selected according to defined criteria. Key Content and Findings: To support lung function during thoracic surgery, the most efficient and popular variety of ECLS is venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Lung resection on a single lung after pneumonectomy, surgery in a patient with severe hypercapnia and/or low respiratory reserve, carinal and airway surgery, and severe thoracic trauma are the main examples of situations where ECLS may be the solution to provide a safe surgical environment in patients who cannot tolerate single lung ventilation. Multidisciplinarity, selection of patients and careful surgical planning are cornerstones in defining the situations that may benefit from ECLS support. Conclusions: Knowledge on techniques of ECLS are essential for every thoracic surgeon. Although rarely used, these techniques of cardiorespiratory support should be considered when planning complex cases with difficulties in ventilation and emergent situations.
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.