ArticleSurgery today2026
Wedge resection versus segmentectomy in peripheral clinical stage IA lung cancer concerning ground-glass opacity.
Article in Surgery today, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRecent randomized controlled trials have shown the non-inferiority of sublobar-to-lobar resection for small peripheral non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, whether wedge resection (WR) or anatomical segmentectomy (SG) is superior remains unclear. We hypothesized that ground-glass opacity (GGO) is associated with the outcomes of WR and SG.
methodsBetween 2010 and 2022, 219 consecutive patients with clinical stage IA peripheral NSCLC who underwent sublobar resection for frailty at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Based on the high-resolution computed tomography findings, the tumors were classified into two groups: part-solid (GGO (+)) and solid (GGO (-)). The long-term outcomes were compared between the WR and SG groups.
resultsIn the part-solid group (n = 124; median CTR, 0.62), WR was equivalent to SG in terms of 5-year disease-free survival [DFS] (98% vs. 91%; p = 0.2) and recurrence rate (0% vs. 4.3%; p = 0.3). In the solid tumor group (n = 95), WR was inferior to SG in terms of the 5-year DFS (43% vs. 80%; p < 0.01) and recurrence rate (32% vs. 3.7%; p < 0.01).
conclusionsIn our study population, WR was not inferior to SG for part-solid tumors. However, for solid tumors, the long-term outcomes of SG are superior to those of WR.
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.