ArticleBMC surgery2025
Evaluating the effectiveness of thoracoscopic intervention for pulmonary abscess: is lobectomy the optimal solution after medical therapy fails?
Article in BMC surgery, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung abscess is typically managed by performing abscess drainage. While pulmonary resection effectively controls infection, its role in eliminating necrotic tissue remains debatable due to risks such as bleeding, desaturation, systemic inflammation, persistent air leakage, and bronchopleural fistula. In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of pulmonary resection for lung abscess refractory to medical therapy.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 70 patients who underwent salvage thoracoscopic surgery for lung abscess, along with 60 days' follow-up, at a tertiary referral hospital between January 2016 and August 2022. Thirty-two patients underwent lobectomy, while 38 did not. The patients' demographics, comorbidities, disease progression, 30-day and 60-day mortality, and operative morbidity were compared between the lobectomy and non-lobectomy groups.
resultsNecrotizing pneumonia was the leading cause of lung abscess (n = 53, 75.7%), with empyema being the most common sign of disease progression (n = 36, 51.4%). The lobectomy group had a lower mortality rate compared with the non-lobectomy group (15.6% vs. 36.8%, p = 0.047). Multivariate analysis identified a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) as a risk factor for 30-day mortality (HR = 1.286, 95% CI = 1.059-1.561; p = 0.011), while lobectomy mitigated the 30-day mortality risk (HR = 0.255, 95% CI = 0.068-0.959; p = 0.043). Similarly, a higher CCI augmented the 60-day mortality risk (HR = 1.317, 95% CI = 1.105-1.571; p = 0.002), whereas lobectomy lowered it (HR = 0.319, 95% CI = 0.110-0.921; p = 0.035).
conclusionLobectomy significantly improves the 30- and 60-day mortality outcomes compared to non-lobectomy surgery, making it a viable option for pharmacotherapy-refractory lung abscess.
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.