ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2024
Uniportal Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery for Minor Procedures.
Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 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.
- Comparative outcomes of uniportal and multiportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Less pain, faster recovery: evaluating 8Fr vs. 22Fr chest tubes in thoracoscopic lung cancer resection.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Feasibility of uniportal thoracoscopic sublobar resection without chest tube drainage: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (uVATS) is becoming popular for major lung resections, even for more complex procedures. The technique initially described for minor procedures seems more difficult to reproduce and has a longer learning curve. This review aims to describe the evolution from multiportal to uVATS and to explore its feasibility and reproducibility by identifying its drawbacks and limitations.
methodsResearch from PubMed was obtained with the terms [uniportal] AND [surgery] OR [single-port] AND [thoracic surgery] OR [VATS]. Papers concerning pediatric cases and non-English papers were excluded. Individual case reports were also excluded. DISCUSSION: uVATS seems to be widely adopted and performed for minor procedures. The applicability of uVATS for different indications is discussed, even though practically all thoracic surgical interventions can be performed through a single incision.
conclusionsThe transition from conventional three-port VATS to uVATS is described in this paper. An increasing number of thoracic surgeons worldwide have adopted this approach, even for major complex anatomical lung resections. Regarding the performance of minor thoracic interventions, we believe this technique is easily reproducible with a short learning curve because the instruments do not cross each other, and intraoperative movements remain intuitive. It is therefore a feasible, safe, and efficacious technique. For these reasons, we believe uVATS should be offered to all patients undergoing minor thoracoscopic procedures.
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.