ArticleZhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer2026
[Safety and Clinical Benefit Analysis of No-chest-tube Strategy After Uniportal Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Pulmonary Wedge Resection Based on Propensity Score Matching].
Article in Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the wide application of uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of small pulmonary nodules, the optimization of postoperative chest tube management has become a focus of enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery. This study aimed to investigate the safety and non-inferiority of a no-drain strategy following uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic wedge resection.
methodsA total of 203 eligible patients who underwent surgery between January 2023 and May 2025 were enrolled and allocated to the no-drain group (n=53) and the drain group (n=150). After propensity score matching (PSM), 41 well-balanced pairs were generated. Non-inferiority testing combined with Bayesian analysis was performed to assess postoperative outcomes.
resultsAfter PSM, the no-drain group met the predefined non-inferiority criteria for the incidence of postoperative fever (19.51% vs 26.83%), pleural effusion (24.39% vs 21.95%), and the proportion of patients requiring additional analgesics (12.20% vs 9.76%), with the upper bound of the 95%CI for between-group differences not exceeding the 10% non-inferiority margin. The no-drain group demonstrated a significantly shorter median postoperative length of stay (2.00 vs 3.00 d, P<0.001) and lower visual analogue scale (VAS) scores on postoperative day 1 (P=0.0495), with non-inferiority confirmed. However, non-inferiority was not established for secondary intervention rates (primarily chest tube reinsertion, 4.88% vs 0.00%) or radiologic complications (73.17% vs 65.85%), as the upper limit of the 95%CI for the between-group differences exceeded the 10% margin. Bayesian analysis showed that the probability that the positive rate of imaging-related complications in the no-drain group was higher than that in the drain group was 77.18%, and the probability that the absolute value of the difference in positive rates between the two groups greater than 10.0% was 44.45%.
conclusionsIn carefully selected low-risk patients, a no-drain strategy following uniportal thoracoscopic wedge resection may reduce postoperative pain and shorten hospital stay, while meeting non-inferiority criteria for key safety outcomes. However, non-inferiority was not demonstrated for secondary chest tube insertion or radiologic complications. Enhanced postoperative monitoring is therefore essential to ensure clinical safety.
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.