SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2026
Perioperative efficacy of subxiphoid and intercostal thoracoscopic thymectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of subxiphoid thoracoscopic thymectomy (SVATS) for thymoma using meta-analysis and to compare it with intercostal thoracoscopic thymectomy (IVATS).
methodsElectronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase) were systematically searched for original studies comparing SVATS and IVATS. A random-effects model was used to evaluate differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage duration, postoperative hospital stay, visual analogue scale (VAS) score and postoperative complications between the two approaches.
resultsA total of 14 cohort studies, comprising 1,647 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The results indicated that the SVATS group had significantly lower intraoperative blood loss (mean differences [MD]: −14.65 ml; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: −22.17 to − 7.1), postoperative drainage volume (MD: −66.14 ml; 95% CI: −131.02 to − 1.26), postoperative drainage duration (MD: −0.73 days; 95% CI: −1.36 to − 0.11), postoperative pain score (standardised mean differences [SMD]: −1.86; 95% CI: −2.37 to − 1.35) and hospital stay (MD: −1.20 days; 95% CI: −1.62 to − 0.78) compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in operative time (MD: −10.36 min; 95% CI: −25.57 to 4.85) or total postoperative complications between the two groups.
conclusionThe SVATS method is effective and safe, with superior perioperative outcomes compared with IVATS. However, high-quality prospective studies are still needed to further validate these findings.
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.