ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025
Chest drain through utility vs separate incision in single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study explores whether using a separate incision for pleural drainage will yield superior results compared to inserting a chest drain through the utility incision in patients with operable lung cancer undergoing single utility port video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy. Research question: Which one is the best?! Inserting the drain through the utility incision or separate incision in a single utility port video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy for lung cancer. Materials and methods: This was a randomized, open-label, superiority trial including patients with bronchogenic carcinoma who underwent a single utility port video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy over a 32-month period. The primary outcome was wound infections and postoperative pain, while the secondary outcomes were the duration of hospitalization and return to work. Results: The study included 89 patients, and 80 patients completed the trial. The mean age was 65.35 ± 9.47 years, 64 (80%) patients were male, and 69 (86.25%) patients had a 0 ECOG score. Eleven patients (13.75%) had a score of 1. The majority of the patients (35%) were in stage IIIA. There was a small but statistically significant difference in return to work when comparing group A with group B (34 ± 6 vs 31 ± 4 days, Conclusions: Inserting the chest drain through a separate incision has superior results compared to inserting it through the utility incision in patients with operable lung cancer undergoing single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy. However, more studies with a larger sample size are necessary to confirm these results. Clinical trial registration: The research was registered in the Research Registry. The registration number is researchregistry8426. The link is https://www.researchregistry.com/register-now#home/?view_2_search=researchregistry8426&view_2_page=1.
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.