ArticleFrontiers in surgery2024
Intraoperative marking of pulmonary nodules in a hybrid operating room: electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy versus percutaneous marking.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Initial experience with the EndoFusion 3D system for noninvasive intraoperative localization of pulmonary nodules.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Preoperative and intraoperative localization of small pulmonary nodules for thoracoscopic surgery: a contemporary narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- The unified front: a multidisciplinary approach in the Era of uniportal thoracic surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Preoperative localization of pulmonary nodules near the fissures: electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy vs. hook-wire percutaneous localization.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Precise localization techniques for small pulmonary nodules: what is next?Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Review
- Intraoperative Transbronchial Metallic Coil Marking for Small Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions in a Hybrid Operation Room.Cancers · 2024Article
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: Intraoperative identification of subsolid or small pulmonary nodules during minimally invasive procedures is challenging. Recent localization techniques show varying success and complications. Hybrid operating rooms (HORs), equipped with radiological tools, facilitate intraoperative imaging. This study compares the accuracy and safety of marking pulmonary nodules using electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB) combined with Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) vs. CBCT-guided percutaneous marking (PM). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with pulmonary nodules scheduled for minimally invasive resection in a HOR. Marking techniques included ENB assisted by CBCT and PM guided by CBCT. The study compared the success rate, procedure time, intraoperative complications and radiation dose of both techniques. Results: A total of 104 patients with 114 nodules were included (October 2021-July 2024). Thirty nodules were marked using ENB, and 84 with PM. One case used both techniques due to ENB failure. No differences among groups were found in nodule characteristics. Success rates were similar (93.3% in ENB group vs. 91.7% in PM group, Conclusions: ENB assisted by CBCT is a safe and effective technique, with success rates comparable to CBCT-guided PM, though it may result in longer procedural times and higher radiation doses.
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.