ArticleAnnals of Saudi medicine
Beyond the ports: outcomes in uni-port vs. multi-port video assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lung resections.
Article in Annals of Saudi medicine. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVideo-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has become the preferred minimally invasive approach for thoracic surgical procedures, with potential advantages over traditional thoracotomy. Perioperative and long-term outcomes between uni-port (U-VATS) versus multi-port (M-VATS) techniques remains under investigation.
objectivesTo compare U-VATS and M-VATS in terms of operative outcomes, complications, and oncological parameters.
designRetrospective cohort study.
settingSingle tertiary referral center, King Saud University Medical City (KSUMC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. PATIENTS AND
methodsAdult patients aged 18-75 years who underwent VATS lung resection between January 2015 and September 2024 were included. Pediatric patients and those undergoing open techniques were excluded. Collected data included sociodemographic, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables. Statistical analysis used t-test, Mann-Whitney U, Chi-square, and multivariate logistic regression.
main outcome measuresOperative time, blood loss, lymph node dissection, postoperative complications, hospital stay, mortality, and recurrence. SAMPLE SIZE: 194 patients (103 U-VATS, 91 M-VATS).
resultsBaseline characteristics were similar between groups. U-VATS was associated with longer operative time, [mean (SD) 210.0 (110.4) vs. 154.2 (69.9) min,
conclusionsBoth U-VATS and M-VATS are safe for lung resections. U-VATS is more commonly used for anatomical resections and allows broader lymph node station sampling, supporting its expanding role in thoracic surgery. LIMITATIONS: Single-center retrospective design, relatively small sample, and incomplete lymph node documentation.
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.