ReviewFrontiers in surgery2026
Clinical efficacy and safety of different video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery approaches for bullous lung resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This meta-analysis evaluates the perioperative safety and comparative efficacy of single-port versus multi-port video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for bullous lung resection in patients with primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted through August 2025 to identify cohort studies comparing single-port (conventional or modified) versus multi-port (double-/triple-port) VATS. Data synthesis was performed using Stata 17.0 with random-effects models to account for inter-study heterogeneity. Results: Thirteen cohort studies (1,151 patients) were included. Single-port VATS was associated with significantly reduced hospital stay [mean difference (MD) = 0.246 days; 95% CI, 0.075-0.416] and a reduction in postoperative pain (MD = 1.100; 95% CI, 0.528-1.671) compared with multi-port VATS. The incidence of chest wall paresthesia was also lower (risk ratio = 0.580; 95% CI, 0.432-0.779). No significant differences were observed in operative time, chest tube duration, stapler use, complications, or recurrence. Subgroup analysis showed that the abbreviated hospital stay was primarily driven by conventional single-port techniques, whereas modified techniques showed no significant difference. Conclusion: Single-port VATS for bullous lung resection is associated with accelerated recovery, attenuated postoperative pain, and a lower incidence of neurological sequelae compared to multi-port VATS, without increasing operative time, complication, or recurrence rates. It represents a safe and feasible alternative, although further randomized trials are needed to establish superiority.
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.