ArticleSurgery open science2024
Are routine, daily chest radiographs (CXR) necessary following (VATS and RATS) lobectomies?
Article in Surgery open science, 2024. 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.
- From tradition to evidence: a narrative review for standardizing chest tube management after anatomic lung resection.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Elimination of routine chest X-rays after lung resection: a quality improvement initiative.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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Consensus guidelines regarding the amount and necessity of post-operative imaging in thoracic surgery are lacking. The efficacy of daily chest radiographs (CXR) following video-assisted (VATS) and robotic-assisted (RATS) thoracoscopic surgery in directing management has not been previously studied. We hypothesize that abnormal clinical findings, rather than abnormal imaging findings, better predict post-operative complications in patients undergoing VATS/RATS lobectomies. Methods: A retrospective review of VATS and RATS lobectomy patients were performed at a tertiary referral center from 1/1/2019-12/31/2021. Demographics, hospital course, and imaging were evaluated. Descriptive statistics, Chi-Square test, Fisher's exact, Wilcoxon rank sum, and multivariable logistic regression were performed. Our outcomes were post-operative complications requiring a procedure and extended length of stay (LOS) (>2 days post-operatively). Results: Out of 362 VATS/RATS lobectomy patients, 15 patients had post-operative complications requiring a procedure. Almost all patients who required a procedure had abnormal clinical signs and symptoms (14/15; Conclusion: Abnormal clinical findings may guide management more predictably than abnormal CXRs after VATS/RATS. Routine CXR in the post-operative setting may be unnecessary in those without clinical signs or symptoms. Key message: There are no consensus guidelines regarding the efficacy of routine, post-operative diagnostic studies after major thoracic lobar resections. The presence of abnormal signs or symptoms after minimally invasive lobectomies may better predict those who will require additional procedures better than the presence of abnormal routine, post-operative chest radiographs.
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.