ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2024
Bilateral lung volume reduction surgery outperforms the unilateral approach in functional improvement.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) is an established treatment approach for patients with severe pulmonary emphysema, enhancing lung function and quality of life in selected patients. Functional benefits and outcomes after uni- versus bilateral lung volume reduction remain a topic of debate.
methodsA retrospective analysis of patients undergoing LVRS from January 2018 to October 2022 was conducted. After encouraging initial results, the standard unilateral LVRS approach was switched to bilateral. The goal of this study was to assess the impact on functional outcomes at 3 and 6 months post-surgery compared to preoperative levels for the uni- versus the bilateral approach.
resultsA total of 83 patients were included (43 bilateral, 40 unilateral). Baseline demographic and functional parameters were comparable between groups. The most common complication was prolonged air leak in 19 patients (11 in the unilateral group, 8 in the bilateral group). Two patients died perioperatively (2.4%). Overall, LVRS improved forced expiratory volume in 1 s by 8.3% after 3 and 12.5% after 6 months postoperatively compared to baseline. Bilateral surgery presented significantly superior forced expiratory volume in 1 s improvement than unilateral approach at both 3 (29.2% versus 2.9%; P = 0.0010) and 6 months (21.5% versus 3%; P = 0.0310) postoperatively. Additionally, it reduced hyperinflation (residual volume) by 23.1% after 3 months and by 17.5% after 6 months, compared to reductions of 16% and 9.1% in the unilateral group.
conclusionsBilateral approach resulted in better functional outcomes 3 and 6 months postoperatively compared to unilateral surgery.
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.