ArticleSurgery today2024
Safety and efficacy of new staple-line reinforcement in lung resection: a prospective study of 48 patients.
Article in Surgery today, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-World Clinical Outcomes of Manual Versus Powered Endoscopic Staplers in Minimally Invasive Lung Cancer Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of PuraStatSurgery today · 2026Article
- Efficacy of bioabsorbable staple line reinforcement in reducing air leakage following pulmonary resection: a cadaveric study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Use of a reinforced triple-row stapler with a powered stapling system reduces the occurrence of postoperative pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Surgical technique of uniportal VATS for pneumothorax: the lateral and subxiphoid approaches.Journal of visualized surgery · 2026Article
- Material Use for Air Leakage Prevention Post-Lung Resection: Insights from Real-World Data in Japan.Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia · 2026Article
- Article
- Pleuroperitoneal Communication following Right Hepatectomy: Successful Treatment with a Combined Thoracoscopic and Laparoscopic Approach.Surgical case reports · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of new staple-line reinforcement (SLR) in pulmonary resection through a prospective study and to compare the results of this study with historical control data in an exploratory study.
methodsThe subjects of this study were 48 patients who underwent thoracoscopic lobectomy. The primary endpoint was air leakage from the staple line. The secondary endpoints were the location of air leakage, duration of air leakage, and postoperative pulmonary complications.
resultsThe incidence of intraoperative air leakage from the staple line was 6.3%. Three patients had prolonged air leakage as a postoperative pulmonary complication. No malfunction was found in patients who underwent SLR with the stapling device. When compared with the historical group, the SLR group had a significantly lower incidence of air leakage from the staple line (6.3% vs. 28.5%, P < 0.001) and significantly shorter indwelling chest drainage time (P = 0.049) and length of hospital stay (P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe use of SLR in pulmonary resection was safe and effective. When compared with conventional products, SLR could control intraoperative air leakage from the staple line and shorten time needed for indwelling chest drainage and the length of hospital stay.
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.