ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2025
Local Recurrence After Sublobar Resection for Primary Lung Cancer: Does the Type of Stapling Device Matter?
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The use of energy devices for dividing the cutting plane in sublobectomy.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTwo major types of stapling devices exist: those with disposable built-in knives and those with nondisposable built-in knives. This study investigated whether the stapler type influences the incidence of local recurrence, including margin recurrence and pleural dissemination, after curative sublobar resection for lung cancer.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent sublobar resection at our institution between 2010 and 2021. We compared disease-free survival, overall survival, and local recurrence between procedures using a stapler with a disposable knife and those using a stapler with a nondisposable knife.
resultsA total of 269 patients were included: 84 were treated with the disposable-knife stapler and 185 with the nondisposable-knife stapler. Local recurrence occurred in 22 of 269 patients (8.2%), including 9 of 84 (10.7%) in the disposable group and 13 of 185 (7.0%) in the nondisposable group (P = .72). Patients who developed local recurrence tended to be older, male, have a smoking history, squamous cell carcinoma, absence of a ground-glass component, positive stapling cartridge cytology, partial resection, right lower lobe tumours, elevated carcinoembryonic antigen, and higher maximum standardized uptake values. In a propensity score-matched study (78 patients per group), no significant differences in disease-free survival, overall survival, or local recurrence were detected between the stapler types.
conclusionsNo statistically significant differences in oncological outcomes were observed between stapler types in this retrospective study; however, the absence of a significant difference does not rule out a real effect. Further large-scale research is warranted.
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.