ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
Evaluating the effectiveness of staged versus simultaneous bilateral lung volume reduction surgery in patients with severe emphysema.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) is an effective treatment for patients with severe emphysema. Most studies favor a bilateral approach over unilateral LVRS. However, there is limited literature comparing the outcomes of sequential bilateral "staged" versus simultaneous bilateral LVRS. Here, we evaluated the safety and effectiveness of these two approaches. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with severe emphysema who underwent LVRS at two tertiary referral centers. Pre- and postoperative-pulmonary function tests were used to assess outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to explore associations between variables. For our survival analysis, we created a composite outcome combining overall survival and transplant-free survival, which was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimate and log-rank test. Cox proportional-hazard models identified factors associated with the composite outcome. Results: The study included 81 patients, the majority of whom were male (n=42, 52%) with a median age of 65 years [interquartile range (IQR), 61-69 years]. Most underwent bilateral LVRS (n=60, 74%) while 21 (26%) had a staged approach. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except for age, with the bilateral group being significantly younger (P=0.03). Hospital length of stay was comparable between the bilateral {10.9 days [standard deviation (SD): 8.13] and staged LVRS groups [13.5 days (SD: 13.2)]} (P=0.40). Rates of pneumonia (13% Conclusions: Staged LVRS offered similar hospital length of stay and complication rates as bilateral LVRS. Both approaches led to clinically significant improvements in pulmonary function. Notably, the staged approach showed a better composite outcome of overall survival and transplant-free survival over simultaneous bilateral LVRS.
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.