ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2026
Systematic or On-Demand Sealant Use in Minimally Invasive Lung Surgery: A Matched Comparison.
Article 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. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesProlonged air leak remains a major concern following minimally invasive lung cancer surgery. This study aimed to evaluate whether the systematic use of aerostatic sealants improves postoperative outcomes compared to an on-demand strategy.
methodsOver a 12-month period, we selected patients underwent anatomical lung resection with minimally invasive techniques for lung cancer. Before March 2023, patients received an absorbable polyglycolic acid patch selectively based on intraoperative findings (on-demand group). Thereafter, a cohort of consecutive patients received a polyethylene glycol sealant systematically (systematic group). Patients matched 1:1 using a propensity score based on type of resection, surgical approach, Forced Expiratory Volume, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Diffusing Capacity of the Lung. The primary end-point was length of hospital stay. Secondary end-points included duration of chest tube drainage, redrainage or blood patch, postoperative complications, and 90-day readmission.
resultsTwo hundred and thirty patients were selected, 164 in on-demand group, and 66 in systematic group; After matching, there were 56 patients in each group. Preoperative baseline characteristics were similar between group. Sealants were used in 100% of patients in the systematic group versus 13% in the on-demand group (N = 29). Median hospital stay was not significantly different (5 [IQR 4-8] vs 5.5 [IQR 3-8] days, P = 0.371). No differences were found in mean drainage duration (4 vs 4 days, P = .327), complication rate (36% vs 34%, P = .491), redrainage (8.9% vs 7.1%; P = .999), or prolonged drainage (13% vs 14%, P = .781). Ninety-day readmission was not significantly different between groups (11% vs 2%, P = .113).
conclusionsThis study revealed no statistically significant differences between the 2 strategies.
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.