ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2024
Feasibility of computed tomography-derived surgical margin assessment in an ex vivo sublobar lung resection model.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Three-dimensional simulation-based wedge resection for non-palpable small lung lesions.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026Article
- Impact of intraoperative specimen computed tomography imaging on grossing accuracy and margin assessment in pulmonary wedge resection.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Pitfall of Wide Wedge Resection: Risk of Overlooking Surgical Margin Shortage.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesComputed tomography (CT) imaging of a sublobar resection specimen may inform intraoperative surgical margin assessment. However, consistency with final pathological margins has not been previously evaluated. In this study, we investigated the concordance between surgical margin measurements by CT versus pathology measurements using an ex vivo sublobar lung resection model.
methodsPig lung wedge samples containing agarose pseudotumours were harvested. CT images were acquired following specimen inflation. The specimen was bisected along the same plane observed by CT for accurate comparison with pathological surgical margin measurement. The bisected samples were then fixed in formalin before preparing haematoxylin & eosin slides. Surgical margin length at four distinct stages (CT, gross pre-formalin fixation, gross post-formalin fixation and pathology) were measured and compared.
resultsA total of 50 lung specimens were analysed. After specimen processing, Surgical margin length decreased in 94% (47/50) and increased in 6% (3/50) of samples. Mean surgical margin lengths were as follows: CT 14.0 mm (range: 4.5-28.3 mm), gross pre-formalin fixation 13.0 mm (range: 4.0-25.0 mm), gross post-formalin fixation 12.1 mm (range: 2.5-26.0 mm) and pathology 10.9 mm (range: 1.0-23.4 mm). There was an average -23.8% (range: +11 to -82%) change in surgical margin length from CT to final pathology (P < 0.001).
conclusionsWhile CT-based surgical margin measurement is feasible, we observed an average 23.8% discordance when compared to final pathology measurement. Surgeons must be aware that the CT-derived surgical margin generally overestimates the pathology-derived surgical margin.
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.