ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Left upper division segmentectomy is not a simple procedure: experience from two high-volume centers.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. 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.
- Correlation of residual lung complications with radiological findings after pulmonary segmentectomy.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Oncological and Surgical Outcomes of Left Trisegmentectomy or Lingulectomy Versus Upper Lobectomy for Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Multicentre Study.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhether left upper division segmentectomy (LUDS) is a simple procedure remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of LUDS with those of simple segmentectomy (SS) (excluding LUDS) and complex segmentectomy (CS) at two high-volume centers.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 1565 patients who underwent thoracoscopic segmentectomy for early-stage lung cancer between February 2015 and February 2020. Patients were categorized into three groups: LUDS (n = 189), SS (n = 317), and CS (n = 1059). The primary endpoint was defined as the occurrence of any following events: intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, 30-day readmission, and local recurrence.
resultsThe rate of the primary endpoint was significantly higher in the LUDS group (14.3%) than in the SS group (7.6%) (P = 0.046) but was comparable between the LUDS and CS groups (14.4%) (P = 1.000). The median operative time in the LUDS group was 135 min, compared to 120 min in the SS group (P < 0.001) and 140 min in the CS group (P = 0.180). The median blood loss and rate of vascular injury in the LUDS group were significantly higher than those in the SS and CS groups (all P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis of the LUDS group demonstrated that the high-experience group had lower rates of primary endpoint and vascular injury, shorter operative time, and reduced blood loss.
conclusionsLUDS is an efficient but complex procedure characterized by a long operative time, considerable blood loss, and a potential risk of vascular injury. Performance by experienced surgeons should be considered, as surgical expertise tends to result in improved outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40199747What 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.