ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2024
Comparing four-hook and double-hook localization needles in preoperative pulmonary nodule positioning: efficacy, safety, and patient perception.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 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.
- CT-guided coaxial four-hook localization improves precision and efficiency in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a retrospective study.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrecise preoperative localization is crucial for improving the success rate and reducing the duration of thoracoscopic surgeries. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and patient perception of the four-hook localization needle compared to the traditional double-hook localization needle in the localization of pulmonary nodules.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 207 patients who underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). Seventy-six patients used a four-hook localization needle preoperatively, while 121 patients used the traditional double-hook needle. Propensity score matching was employed to balance the baseline characteristics of the two groups and minimize confounding bias. We compared the surgery success rate, surgical field success rate, complication rate, and post-localization respiratory pain score between the two groups.
resultsBoth localization methods achieved a 100% success rate. The four-hook needle had a statistically significant shorter localization time (20.00 min vs. 21.00 min, P = 0.046) and a lower preoperative displacement rate (5.81% vs. 17.36%, P = 0.014) compared to the double-hook needle. Both before and after propensity score matching, the postoperative respiratory pain score was significantly lower in the four-hook group compared to the double-hook group (P < 0.001). After balancing baseline characteristics, univariate (P = 0.036) and multivariate (P = 0.039) logistic regression analyses indicated that the four-hook group had a significantly lower risk of localization complications compared to the double-hook group.
conclusionsThe four-hook localization needle outperforms the traditional double-hook needle due to its shorter localization time, lower post-localization respiratory pain score, and reduced displacement rate, making it a simpler and safer option. Furthermore, the four-hook needle effectively reduces the risk of complications, presenting a promising method for preoperative localization of pulmonary nodules.
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.