ArticleJTCVS open2026
The safety and efficacy of lung volume reduction surgery: A 25-year single institution experience.
Article in JTCVS open, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) in well-selected patients significantly improves lung function. Regardless of its proven effects, LVRS is still widely underused worldwide. In this overview, we demonstrate our 25 years of experience in the largest single-center cohort. Methods: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on patients undergoing LVRS at the Department of Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Zurich between November 2000 and February 2025 is presented, including functional outcomes. Results: Seven hundred thirteen patients (323 women [45.3%]) with a median age of 65 years (range, 59-71 years) and predominantly heterogeneous morphology (70.3%) needing in 38.9% permanent oxygen supply underwent LVRS (93.7% minimally invasive approach, 43.1% bilateral). All relevant lung function parameters had improved significantly at the 6-month follow-up (change [Δ] forced expiratory volume in 1 second: +22.0% predicted, Δ residual volume: -762.2 mL, Δ total lung capacity: -418.1 mL, Δ residual volume to total lung capacity ratio: -10.3%, Δ diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide: +3.2, and Δ 6-minute walk distance: +32 m; all Conclusions: LVRS leads to a significant improvement of all key lung function parameters, with low in-hospital mortality in this very fragile patient cohort.
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.