ArticleClinical transplantation2025
Anterolateral vs. Clamshell Thoracotomy for Bilateral Lung Transplantation.
Article in Clinical transplantation, 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.
- Outcomes of lung transplantation surgery performed at night.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Anterolateral vs. Clamshell Thoracotomy for Bilateral Lung Transplantation.Clinical transplantation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClamshell thoracotomy is the traditional approach for bilateral sequential lung transplantation (LuTx), despite considerable morbidity. The bilateral anterolateral thoracotomy without sternal division is proposed as an alternative, less invasive method. Since this technique is more surgically challenging, the aim of this study was to evaluate the more favorable surgical approach.
methodsAdult patients undergoing LuTx between 2010 and 2022 were included in this single-center retrospective cohort study. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess the effect of surgical approach on mortality, operative outcomes, and complications.
resultsA total of 249 patients (anterolateral thoracotomy: n = 132, clamshell: n = 117) were included. Recipients in the anterolateral thoracotomy group were older, on the waiting list for a shorter period of time, classified less often as highly urgent, and differed in their indications for LuTx. After multivariable correction, operating and ischemic times were longer for patients in the anterolateral thoracotomy group. However, patients with an anterolateral thoracotomy incision had less intraoperative extracorporeal circulation (ECC) use, blood loss, and need for transfusion. While survival was similar, ICU and hospital stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation were shorter. Patients in the anterolateral thoracotomy group also had significantly less wound-related complications. The use of intraoperative ECC, which was much higher in the clamshell group, seemed to play an important role in these differences in outcomes.
conclusionPerforming LuTx through the less invasive anterolateral thoracotomy is a favorable alternative to the clamshell incision. Despite increased technical difficulty and a limited increase in operating and ischemic times, survival is similar, but the anterolateral thoracotomy patients had significantly less peri- and post-operative complications and a faster recovery.
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.