ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2025
Reduction of low attenuation areas of emphysema after lung volume reduction surgery compared to bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with valves.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 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 volume reduction surgery (LVRS) enables a tailored resection of emphysematous lung areas, whereas bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) with valves excludes a whole lobe. We hypothesize greater reduction of areas with low attenuation on computed tomography (CT) scans by LVRS, assuming to spare still functioning tissue, compared with BLVR.
methodsLVRS patients were prospectively collected and a post-hoc analysis was performed to compare patients after BLVR with valves. Pre- and postoperative (3 months after LVRS, 1 months after BLVR) lung function, 6-minute walking distance (6-MWD) and changes in low attenuation areas (LAA, ≤- 950 hounsfield units) in CT was measured. The BLVR group needed proven target lobe atelectasis to be included. Primary endpoint was the radiologically measured LAA reduction.
resultsAmong the 27 patients who underwent LVRS between August 2019 and October 2020, complete data were available for 19 patients. In contrast, 18 out of 27 BLVR patients achieved complete lobar atelectasis. Both LVRS and BLVR significantly improved LAA (Δ41% and Δ28%), lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second FEV1) and 6-MWD (all p<0.05). However, LVRS showed no significant advantage over BLVR for LAA (p=0.068), FEV1 (p=0.132) or 6-MWD (p=0.077).
conclusionNeither LVRS nor BLVR seem to be superior in sparing or eliminating still functional tissue, as both methods showed no differences in reduction of LAA. This information might contribute to the decision at an interdisciplinary emphysema board, where all cases are preferably discussed.
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.