ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
Modified surgical incision suturing technique in uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic pulmonary resection.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic-assisted pulmonary resection with a periareolar assistant port: learning curve and propensity-matched comparison with the conventional-portal approach.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Analysis of risk factors for poor wound healing after Nuss procedure for pectus excavatum and establishment of a predictive model.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Video-Assisted vs. Robotic-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery in Lung Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Techniques and Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Evolution of uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: optimization and advancements.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In recent years, single-hole thoracoscopic surgery technology is widely used in major medical centers and chest-specialized hospitals for the treatment of lung diseases. However, the single-hole minimally invasive surgery method focuses on one incision, and all surgical instruments need to pass through the same hole, resulting in repeated extrusion and tissue damage of the surgical incision. Therefore, we have improved the suture method of conventional surgical incision in order to reduce the probability of wound infection and dehiscence, promote early healing, and reduce the severity of postoperative wound scar, thereby enhancing the postoperative rapid recovery of patients. The purpose of this study is to explore the clinical efficacy of a modified surgical incision suture technique applied to uniportal thoracoscopic pulmonary resection. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed 151 patients who were admitted to the Department of Thoracic Surgery and underwent pulmonary resection from January 2019 to October 2021 in the North District of Suzhou Municipal Hospital. The patients were divided into two groups according to the different surgical incision suture methods: a modified group and a conventional group. The postoperative general clinical indexes, incision infection rate, secondary suture rate, postoperative incision pain score, and the severity of postoperative incision scar were compared and analyzed between the two groups. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of chest tube duration or postoperative drainage and postoperative incision pain scores; the incision infection rate (1.3% Conclusions: Our modified suture method reduces the chance of infection and splitting and the severity of postoperative incision scar formation, promoting early healing. It can be safely and effectively applied to the incision suture of uniportal thoracoscopic pulmonary resection, enhancing the rapid postoperative recovery of patients.
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.