ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2025
Single versus double lung transplantation outcomes in artificial stone silicosis: a single-centre retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 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.
- Artificial stone and silicosis: the Korean experience.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2026Review
- Single versus double lung transplantation in patients with pneumoconiosis: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSilicosis, caused by inhaling crystalline silica, is a growing global health concern exacerbated by the increased use of artificial stone. In end-stage silicosis, lung transplantation may be the only available treatment. While double lung transplantation has long-term survival benefits over single lung transplantation, this issue was not assessed in patients with silicosis. RESEARCH QUESTION: Our study aimed to evaluate survival outcomes in silicosis patients undergoing lung transplantation, comparing single versus double lung transplants. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsThis is a single-centre retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent lung transplantation for silicosis at our centre between March 2006 and March 2024.
resultsDuring the study period, our centre conducted 778 lung transplantations, 40 of them (5.14%) were for silicosis, 25 single lung transplants and 15 double lung transplants. Double lung transplantation recipients experienced a more challenging surgical course due to adhesions and difficulty in explantation, associated with a significantly higher volume of blood products (8.00±15.13 units vs 24.85±24.41 units, p=0.023) and longer ischaemic times (243.63±85.36 min vs 327.67±95.23 min, p=0.009). There was no significant difference in the risk of death or re-transplantation in the single lung versus the double lung group (HR 1.163, 95% CI 0.473 to 2.861; p=0.74). Additionally, the two groups had no significant disparities in pulmonary function test results at 1 and 3 years post-transplant (51.93±22.43 vs 66.67±32.09 forced expiratory volume in the first second percent predicted at 36 months follow-up, p=0.25).
conclusionGiven the intricate surgical procedure required for transplanting lungs in cases of silicosis, longer ischaemic times, increased need for blood products and the absence of definitive evidence supporting double lung transplantation in this population, it may be prudent to contemplate prioritising single lung transplantation for these patients.
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.