ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2024
Single-center clinical experience of extended sleeve lobectomy (ESL) versus standard sleeve lobectomy (SL).
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 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: Sleeve lobectomy (SL) and extended SL (ESL), which aim to preserve pulmonary function and enhance the quality of life of patients while ensuring oncological outcomes, are valuable surgical options for the treatment of centrally located non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to compare perioperative adverse events and long-term survival between SL and ESL in NSCLC patients, providing a comprehensive review of surgical outcomes, complications, and survival to assess the roles of SL and ESL in thoracic oncology. Methods: This single-center retrospective study assessed the outcomes of NSCLC patients who underwent SL or ESL from June 2014 to January 2022. The patients were selected based on specific inclusion criteria, and statistical analyses were conducted to examine the postoperative outcomes, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) of the patients. Results: A total of 218 patients met the inclusion criteria. Among 218 patients, 33 underwent ESL and 185 underwent SL. Compared to SL, ESL was associated with longer operative times and higher R0 resection rates (93.9% Conclusions: ESL is a feasible and effective alternative for treating centrally located NSCLC, with better R0 resection rates and comparable survival outcomes to SL, without increasing the risk of grade III-IV complications. Further studies with larger cohorts need to be conducted to validate these findings and refine the surgical techniques.
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.