ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2024
Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction as the Treatment of Choice versus Robotic-Assisted Lung Volume Reduction Surgery in Similar Patients with Emphysema - An Initial Experience of the Benefits and Complications.
Article in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Connecting the dots: historical perspective on lung volume reduction.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Synchronous Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Fissure Closure and Endoscopic Lung Volume Reduction Using Endobronchial Valves in a Patient with Less Than 20% Fissure Completeness: A Case Report.International medical case reports journal · 2026Article
- Lung volume reduction: surgeryBreathe (Sheffield, England) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: There is an assumption that because EBLVR requires less use of hospital resources, offsetting the higher cost of endobronchial valves, it should therefore be the treatment of choice wherever possible. We have tested this hypothesis in a retrospective analysis of the two in similar groups of patients. Methods: In a 4-year experience, we performed 177 consecutive LVR procedures: 83 patients underwent Robot Assisted Thoracoscopic (RATS) LVRS and 94 EBLVR. EBLVR was intentionally precluded by evidence of incomplete fissure integrity or intra-operative assessment of collateral ventilation. Unilateral RATS LVRS was performed in these cases together with those with unsuitable targets for EBLVR. Results: EBLVR was uncomplicated in 37 (39%) cases; complicated by post-procedure spontaneous pneumothorax (SP) in 28(30%) and required revision in 29 (31%). In the LVRS group, 7 (8%) patients were readmitted with treatment-related complications, but no revisional procedure was needed. When compared with uncomplicated EBLVR, LVRS had a significantly longer operating time: 85 (14-82) vs 40 (15-151) minutes (p<0.001) and hospital stay: 7.5 (2-80) vs 2 (1-14) days (p<0.01). However, LVRS had a similar total operating time to both EBLVR requiring revision: 78 (38-292) minutes and hospital stay to EBLVR complicated by pneumothorax of 11.5 (6.5-24.25) days. Use of critical care was significantly longer in RATS group, and it was also significantly longer in EBV with SP group than in uncomplicated EBV group. Conclusion: Endobronchial LVR does use less hospital resources than RATS LVRS in comparable groups if the recovery is uncomplicated. However, this advantage is lost if one includes the resources needed for the treatment of complications and revisional procedures. Any decision to favour EBLVR over LVRS should not be based on the assumption of a smoother, faster perioperative course.
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.