ArticleJournal of visualized surgery2024
Awake thoracoscopic pericardial window is safe and feasible.
Article in Journal of visualized surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From Awake to Minimalist Spontaneous Ventilation Thoracoscopic Mediastinum Surgery: How Far Are We?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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
Background: Pericardial window is the definitive treatment for pericardial effusions. Minimally invasive approach has certain advantages that favor its utilization but requires general anesthesia. These include potential patient advantages such as less pain, less morbidity, and shorter length of stay and surgical advantages such as better visualization of the pericardium. However, general anesthesia may pose increased risk for certain patients which may prohibit traditional minimally invasive approaches. Case Description: We present a four-case series of awake thoracoscopic pericardial window procedures performed in a tertiary care hospital from 2013 to 2021. Thoracic surgery consultation was requested on these patients with pericardial effusions. Patient's age ranged from 31 to 80 years with equal sex distribution and a variety of medical co-morbidities. The majority of the patients had undergone pericardiocentesis but recurred. Due to concerns regarding the patients' ability to tolerate general anesthesia, awake surgery was offered to these patients. Awake thoracoscopic pericardial window was performed with concomitant pleural and/or mediastinal procedures with operative times ranging from 52 to 95 minutes. The majority of patients had non-malignant etiologies. All patients did well peri-operatively without any complications. The chest tubes were removed in 2-7 days and the patients were discharged from the hospital in 2-10 days. Conclusions: Awake thoracoscopic pericardial window can be safely performed for patients and offers both diagnostic and therapeutic benefits to even those who are not candidates for general anesthesia.
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.