ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
Airway stent intervention in a high-volume center: safe procedures and educational perspectives.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Airway intervention, including stenting, can rapidly improve a patient's respiratory condition, but the procedure requires highly specialized techniques and expertise. Therefore, educating young endoscopists and passing on the techniques are major issues. However, the best way to educate new doctors on these techniques remains unclear. This study analyzed our educational system for airway intervention and its outcomes. Methods: Patients who underwent airway intervention regarding airway stents under general anesthesia in our department between January 2010 and September 2023 were included. The outcomes of interventions related to airway stents in our hospital were evaluated retrospectively, including from an educational perspective. Results: A total of 96 patients (76 undergoing stenting for airway stenosis, 8 stenting for airway-esophageal fistula, and 12 stent removal) were analyzed. The median experience level of the main physician was 5 (range, 1-17) years, and that of the supervising physician was 18 (range, 5-23) years. The median number of physicians who participated in the interventions was four. A rigid bronchoscope was used in 86.5% of cases. The procedure success rate was 95.8%. Intraoperative complications occurred in 8.3% and postoperative complications in 10.5% of cases, and there was 1 procedure-related death (1.3%). In the analysis of factors related to the development of complications, the years of experience of the main physician had no influence. Conclusions: These findings indicate that our method of airway intervention is safe. Young endoscopists were able to master the technique by gaining experience under the supervision of experts.
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.