Trial reportInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2026
Efficacy of Non-Powered Stapler in Lung Volume Reduction Surgery of Severe Lung Emphysema: A Prospective Randomized Single-Blinded Monocentric Study.
Trial report in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05628415 (Comparison Between the Non-powered AEON™ Endostapler and Echelon FLEX™ Powered Plus Stapler With Regards to the Closure of Lung Tissue After Lung Resection in the Presence of Severe Lung Emphysema), which is not on this 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.
Comparison Between the Non-powered AEON™ Endostapler and Echelon FLEX™ Powered Plus Stapler With Regards to the Closure of Lung Tissue After Lung Resection in the Presence of Severe Lung Emphysema: A Prospective Randomized Single-blinded Monocentric Study
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
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to assess whether the use of the non-powered AEON Endostapler during lung resection in patients with severe lung emphysema reduces the duration of postoperative air leak, as measured by the air leak volume over time, in comparison to the Echelon Flex Powered Plus Stapler.
methodsA total of 32 lung volume reduction surgeries were performed on 19 patients, stratified by side of the operation. These procedures were randomly assigned to utilize either the non-powered or the powered stapler. Postoperative air leak was monitored using a digital recording system. The time to air leak closure, the incidence and severity of air leaks, and the duration of chest tube placement were evaluated.
resultsImmediate postoperative air leaks were observed in 6 of 17 procedures (35.3%) using the non-powered stapler and in 9 of 15 procedures (60%) performed with the powered stapler. The median time to closure of the air leak was also considerably shorter in the non-powered procedures: 14.3 hours [6.7, 116] compared to 93.2 hours [2.1, 159] for the powered treatments. Cox regression analysis yielded a hazard ratio of 1.6 (95% CI, 0.73-3.3) for a faster air leak closure with the non-powered stapler (P = .25).
conclusionsBoth stapler systems are feasible for use in patients with severe lung emphysema. However, our results show an earlier air leak closure and a lower incidence of postoperative air leaks with the use of a non-powered stapler. CLINICAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05628415? term=LVRS&rank=9, 28.11.2022.
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.