ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2023
Enhanced efficacy of a novel aspirator in uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic mediastinal lymph node dissection: a non-randomized prospective clinical trial.
Article 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 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes of uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for lung cancer patients with concomitant pulmonary tuberculosis: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Perioperative outcomes of uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy in scope operation performed by a clinical engineer.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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is the standard approach in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and surgical aspirators play a crucial role. Traditional aspirators lack the ability to pull and lift tissue and cannot achieve optimal exposure. Therefore, we designed a new surgical aspirator that combined the function of thoracoscopic forceps. In this study, we aimed to validate the efficacy and safety of this new surgical aspirator. Methods: We performed a prospective non-randomized intervention trial and enrolled 504 consecutive patients scheduled for uniportal VATS in early NSCLC requiring mediastinal lymph node dissection. A novel aspirator we developed with a clamping function via a front pliers-like structure was implemented in intervention group, whereas traditional aspirator was used in control group. Time spent for nodal dissection in No. 2/4R and No. 7R/L (No. 7 lymph nodes resected through right or left side) lymph nodes and perioperative adverse events related to lymph node dissection were recorded. Mann-Whitey Results: In total, 250 of enrolled patients were allocated into traditional aspirator group and 254 of them were allocated into new aspirator group. Surgeons spent 544.71±120.80 (range, 332-917, median 541) seconds dissecting No. 2/4R lymph nodes with traditional aspirators and 507.54±100.00 (range, 348-702, median 520) seconds dissecting with new aspirators (P=0.008). The traditional aspirator group had an average surgery time of 507.11±104.61 (range, 310-785, median 510) seconds for No. 7R lymph nodes and 608.47±128.50 (range, 397-919, median 606) seconds for No. 7L lymph nodes, while that in the new aspirator group was 465.09±94.94 (range, 271-744, median 476) seconds (P=0.001) and 549.39±102.11 (range, 368-782, median 538) seconds (P<0.001). The new aspirator showed an efficacy advantage in mediastinal lymph node dissection in VATS, without additional risk. Conclusions: This is the first report about a new suction device combining the functions of both traditional surgical aspirators and forceps, which can effectively shorten the time of mediastinal lymph node dissection and improve the efficiency of thoracoscopic surgery without increasing lymph node dissection-related adverse events.
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.