ArticleJTCVS open2025
Factors and outcomes associated with successful minimally invasive pneumonectomy.
Article in JTCVS open, 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.
- Complex Thoracic Resections in the Minimally Invasive Era: Is Open Surgery Becoming a Lost Skill?Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Largest single-institution series of robotic pneumonectomy.Frontiers in 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To test the hypothesis that patients undergoing minimally invasive pneumonectomy at high-volume minimally invasive lung surgery centers have improved survival compared with patients who undergo open pneumonectomy. Methods: Patients from the National Cancer Database who underwent pneumonectomy for lung cancer between 2010 and 2020 were stratified into 3 groups according to surgical technique (open, minimally invasive, converted from minimally invasive to open). Institutions were categorized as low-, mid-, or high-volume minimally invasive lung surgery centers according to percentage of total anatomic lung resections performed by video-assisted or robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. Outcomes were compared using Cox regression, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and propensity score matching. Results: In total, 5750 patients from 850 facilities were included, with 4597 (79.9%) undergoing upfront open pneumonectomy. Among the 1153 attempted minimally invasive pneumonectomies, 364 (31.6%) required conversion to open pneumonectomy. Surgery at a non-high-volume center was associated with greater conversion risk (adjusted odds ratio, 4.16; Conclusions: Minimally invasive pneumonectomy for lung cancer had similar 5-year survival compared with open pneumonectomy. However, conversion from minimally invasive to open pneumonectomy showed a trend toward increased risk of death, and conversion rates were high irrespective of institutional minimally invasive lung surgery volume. Careful patient selection is necessary when considering minimally invasive pneumonectomy so that long-term outcomes are not compromised.
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.