ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Comparative analysis of safety and efficacy of non-intubation in lung wedge resection using thoracoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Whether non-intubated thoracoscopic surgery is superior to traditional thoracoscopic surgery is still controversial, and no studies have clearly shown that non-intubated lung wedge resection is superior to or inferior to traditional lung wedge resection. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of lung wedge resection under non-intubation (non-invasive ventilation). Methods: A comprehensive search of the online databases was conducted as of February 2026. The outcomes related to perioperative safety and postoperative effectiveness of the included studies were comprehensively analyzed, and a single-group meta-analysis was performed. Results: A total of 12 studies involving 1,167 patients [566 non-intubated group (NIG) Conclusions: Observational data suggest that non-intubation techniques are feasible and correlate with reduced surgery durations, shorter anesthesia times, decreased intraoperative blood loss, and abbreviated postoperative hospital stays. However, for spontaneous pneumothorax surgery and lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS), the advantages of non-intubation techniques are not obvious. Nevertheless, significant heterogeneity and limitations in the research preclude definitive recommendations. Due to the study limitations, additional high-quality studies are needed to confirm the safety and feasible of non-intubated LVRS and spontaneous pneumothorax surgery.
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.