ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Effect of surgical management for anterior mediastinal large mass: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Minimally invasive surgery for anterior mediastinal mass with a maximum diameter greater than 5 cm remains challenging. This study assessed perioperative outcomes based on the 5-cm size threshold to determine if large tumors can be safely managed thoracoscopically. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 40 patients with anterior mediastinal masses who underwent surgical management between March 2015 and November 2024. Patients were stratified by the maximum tumor diameter on computed tomography scans: those with a diameter ≥5 cm constituted Group I (n=19), and those with a diameter <5 cm constituted Group II (n=21). Demographic, clinical, perioperative, and short-term outcome data were collected and compared between the cohorts. Results: In Group I (n=19), the surgical approaches comprised trans-subxiphoid thoracoscopy in 10 cases, trans-intercostal thoracoscopy in 5 cases, transverse sternotomy in 2 cases, median sternotomy in 1 case, and posterolateral thoracotomy in 1 case; R0 resection was achieved in 16 cases, with R2 resection in the remaining 3. In Group II (n=21), procedures included trans-subxiphoid thoracoscopy in 19 cases, trans-intercostal thoracoscopy in 1 case, and a transverse cervical incision in 1 case; R0 resection was accomplished in all 21 patients, although two cases were converted to open surgery. The postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in Group I compared to Group II. No significant differences were found between the two groups in operating time, rate of conversion to open surgery, or degree of resection. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that tumor size ≥5 cm alone may not be an absolute contraindication for thoracoscopic surgery. Preoperative assessment of potential extratumoral invasion and risk of major hemorrhage appear to be more critical factors in selecting the surgical approach.
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.