ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Perioperative analgesic strategies for video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy is the standard of care for early-stage lung cancer, yet 20-30% of patients still experience moderate-to-severe acute postoperative pain. A wide range of perioperative analgesic strategies-regional blocks, systemic adjuncts, cryoanalgesia, and multimodal combinations-have been evaluated, but their comparative effects on clinically meaningful endpoints such as postoperative complications remain uncertain. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of perioperative analgesic strategies for VATS lobectomy. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (PROSPERO CRD420251186565), following the PRISMA 2020 statement. PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science Core Collection were searched from 1 January 2010 to 26 June 2026. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool per outcome. Postoperative complications were pooled as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model with restricted maximum-likelihood (REML) estimation. Studies were grouped by intervention type for subgroup analysis. Sensitivity was assessed with leave-one-out analysis. Results: Seven trials (n=505) met inclusion criteria. The evidence base was clinically heterogeneous: included comparisons encompassed regional technique variations [paravertebral block (PVB), serratus anterior plane block (SAPB), intercostal nerve block (ICNB), and their combinations], systemic adjunctive analgesics (nefopam), and intercostal cryoanalgesia. Only three trials reported usable complication data for quantitative synthesis (n=245). The overall pooled RR for postoperative complications was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.65-1.08; P=0.18), but this estimate was dominated by a single trial (Koliakos 2025, 75.2% weight). Between-study heterogeneity was absent (I Conclusions: The available evidence on perioperative analgesic strategies for VATS lobectomy consists of small, heterogeneous trials comparing diverse interventions. No single strategy has been shown to consistently reduce postoperative complications. The evidence base is insufficient to guide clinical practice. Adequately powered, multicentre RCTs with standardised interventions, composite complication endpoints, and extended follow-up are needed.
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.