ReviewJournal of visualized surgery2025
Techniques of double-sleeve lobectomy for lung cancer: a narrative review of clinical practice.
Review in Journal of visualized surgery, 2025. 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 and Objective: Double sleeve (DS) lobectomy is a specialised lung-sparing operation which can be offered to patients with centrally located tumours, which can avoid pneumonectomy. The technique is historically performed via thoracotomy, but video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) and robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) are gaining traction as minimally invasive alternatives. There are currently no reviews of these techniques. We aim to provide a narrative review of the techniques of DS lobectomy for lung cancer. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and PubMed for the following Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms: "sleeve", "lobectomy OR resection", "lung OR cancer OR NSCLC OR tumour", "VATS, RATS, thoracotomy, open OR minimally invasive", and limited the review to all English language studies published between 1946 and 23rd October 2024 only. Key Content and Findings: In total, our automatic search criteria found 173 papers discussing sleeve lobectomies/resections. After manual sorting, 36 studies in total described DS operations using varied terminology, including "tangential sleeve resection with circumferential anastomosis, extended sleeve resection, sleeve resection with pulmonary angioplasty, complex sleeve resections", and most commonly "DS". Of these 36 studies, 12 (n=233) described DS resections exclusively, while the rest discussed both single and DS resections. Our review found that current literature reports little difference in long-term overall survival (OS) between single and DS operations. Surgical approach (particularly thoracotomy Conclusions: Thoracotomy remains the most used approach in DS lobectomies; VATS may offer shorter post-operative stays than the thoracotomy approach. RATS is currently too infrequently performed to make overarching conclusions, but short-term perioperative outcomes in single-centre reports are promising. We hope that this review provides a novel and comprehensive review of evolving trends in current surgical practices of DS operations to assist clinical decision making for maximum patient benefit.
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.