ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Hand-side matching in TOETVA: assessing feasibility and surgical outcomes through learning curve and propensity score-matched cohorts.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo address the lack of guidance for operating the non-dominant side in TOETVA by assessing whether non-dominant-hand TOETVA on the non-dominant side (left hand-left lobe) is a feasible strategy with similar surgical outcomes compared with the conventional dominant-hand approach (right hand-right lobe).
methodsThis is a single-center, single-surgeon retrospective cohort. Consecutive unilateral TOETVA cases (August 2016-August 2020) were included. Patients were grouped as NDH-TOETVA (left hand on the left lobe) or DH-TOETVA (right hand on the right lobe). Learning curves were segmented using cumulative sum (CUSUM) of operative time into Phase I (initial), Phase II (adaptation), and Phase III (mastery). Phase III outcomes were compared after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) on key covariates.
resultsCUSUM identified distinct phase boundaries: DH-TOETVA Phase I cases 1-13, Phase II 14-54, Phase III ≥ 55; NDH-TOETVA Phase I 1-17, Phase II 18-37, and Phase III ≥ 38. After PSM in Phase III, 176 patients were analyzed (NDH 88 cases, DH 88 cases). Post-match baseline characteristics were balanced. There were no significant differences between NDH and DH in operative time, estimated blood loss, central neck lymph nodes retrieved/positive, length of stay, postoperative drainage, and complications (P > 0.05).
conclusionsHand-side matching is a feasible strategy with compared surgical outcomes in TOETVA. Findings support incorporating this strategy and bilateral-hand training into standardized practice with phase-based, objective assessment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (UIN: ChiCTR2500097005, https://www.chictr.org.cn ), 2025.2.11.
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.