ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
Cost-effectiveness and postoperative outcomes of spontaneous
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. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tubeless anesthesia improves postoperative recovery following VATS wedge resection: a prospective randomized controlled study.BMC surgery · 2025Trial
- Intraoperative management and postoperative outcomes of patients with high body mass index undergoing tubeless anesthesia for non-intubated uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a single-center retrospective propensity score matching study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Direct, minimally intrusive quantification of rebreathing in the circle breathing system during spontaneous breathing: a proof-of-concept feasibility study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Application of tubeless anesthesia for enhanced recovery after thoracoscopic wedge resection of the lung: a randomized trial.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Optimization of carbon dioxide insufflation strategies in minimally invasive cardiac surgery: the efficacy of continuous insufflation protocols with left ventricular venting.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is known to have the advantages of being minimally invasive, reducing complications, and shortening hospitalization time. However, related cost surveys have been inconsistent. In recent years, a new concept of tubeless anesthesia has been introduced, but its impact on the cost-effectiveness of VATS is unclear. This study compared the hospitalization costs and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing spontaneous ventilation VATS (SV-VATS) and mechanical ventilation VATS (MV-VATS). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data on the VATS procedures performed at the Shaoxing People's Hospital from June 2022 to July 2023. Overall, 386 patients who met the inclusion criteria were treated with SV-VATS (n=57) or MV-VATS (n=329). Comprehensive cost comparisons were performed between the groups. Results: The two groups shared comparable clinical characteristics, such as age (P=0.64), sex (P=0.72), body mass index (BMI) (P=0.68), and type of procedure (P=0.43). All costs are expressed in U.S. dollars ($). The overall, diagnostic, operation, and material costs of SV-VATS and MV-VATS were $3,858.71±$746.32 Conclusions: Compared with SV-VATS, MV-VATS can reduce patients' anesthesia and medicine costs and has similar postoperative adverse event rates in VATS patients, which is conducive to accelerating patient recovery. Therefore, tubeless anesthesia is recommended for future VATS.
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.