ArticleBMC surgery2026
Survival and safety: wedge resection, segmentectomy, and lobectomy in NSCLC.
Article in BMC 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of three surgical methods (wedge resection, segmentectomy and lobectomy) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 130 NSCLC patients who underwent thoracoscopic surgery. Patients were categorized into wedge resection (n = 50), segmentectomy (n = 40) and lobectomy (n = 40) groups. Baseline characteristics, perioperative parameters (operative time, drainage time, length of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss), postoperative adverse events (reoperation, atrial arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism, prolonged air leak, pulmonary infection, pneumothorax, pleural effusion, atelectasis), and survival rates stratified by tumor diameter (< 1.0 cm, 1.1-2.0 cm) were recorded and compared.
resultsBaseline characteristics were comparable among the three groups (P > 0.05). For tumors < 1.0 cm, the overall survival (OS) rates were similar among wedge resection, segmentectomy, and lobectomy groups (88% vs. 90.48% vs. 91.30%) (P > 0.05). In tumors measuring 1.1-2.0 cm, the observed OS rates were 92.00% for wedge resection, 63.16% for segmentectomy, and 64.71% for lobectomy (P < 0.05). The three surgical approaches showed significant differences in the number of lymph nodes sampled, the detection rate of positive lymph nodes, and the resection method (P < 0.05), while no statistically significant difference was observed in the margin status (P > 0.05). Wedge resection was associated with the shortest operative time and drainage time (P < 0.05), while length of hospital stay and intraoperative blood loss did not differ significantly across the three approaches (P > 0.05). The incidence of postoperative adverse events presented no discernible difference in the three surgical approaches (P > 0.05).
conclusionsFor tumors smaller than 1 cm, wedge resection was associated with OS similar to that of segmentectomy and lobectomy. For selected tumors measuring 1.1-2.0 cm, wedge resection was associated with higher observed OS in this cohort and with shorter operative and drainage times; prospective validation is needed.
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.