ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2024
Comparison of different localization needles and postures in localization of pulmonary nodules.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and safety of the RC120 navigation system for the computed tomography-guided localization of pulmonary ground-glass nodules: a prospective study with historical controls.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWith advancements in imaging testing and surgical procedures, an increasing number of nodules with smaller diameters and deeper locations have been deemed suitable for surgical intervention. The preoperative localization of these nodules has become essential. In this retrospective single-center study, we aimed to compare the effectiveness and patient comfort associated with the use of a four-hook needle versus a hook-wire needle for preoperative localization. Additionally, we sought to evaluate the impact of different patient postures on localization effectiveness.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the data of 692 patients following preoperative CT-guided localization. The patients were categorized into different groups based on the type of localization needles used and their respective postures during localization.
resultsThere was no statistical difference in total complications between the four-hook needle group and the hook-wire needle group (P > 0.05). The chest pain score in the four-hook needle group was lower than the hook-wire needle group (P = 0.001). The incidence of decoupling in the four-hook needle group was significantly lower than the hook-wire needle group (P < 0.05). The four-hook needle group had better performance in terms of localization operation time, operation time, intraoperative bleeding and first-day drainage (P < 0.05). Compared with the supine and lateral groups, the prone posture group had better performance in total complications and localization operation time, and worse performance in decoupling and chest pain (P < 0.05).
conclusionsThe four-hook needle has better effectiveness on localization and comfort in patient than the hook-wire needle, which is worthy of clinical promotion and application. The patient's different postures during localization procedure may affect the localization results.
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.