FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W565535850> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W565535850 endingPage "876" @default.
• W565535850 startingPage "876" @default.
• W565535850 abstract "The paper from Laursen et al. [1] is a well-written retrospective analysis comparing the early outcomes of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) versus open lobectomies performed in the eastern region of Denmark. The authors found that VATS patients had a 46% lower incidence of major cardiopulmonary complications compared with the open ones (20 vs 37%). After adjusting for several confounders by using multivariable analysis, they found that the odds ratio of having major complications after thoracotomy compared with VATS was 1.9. The message of this work is not new. Several other retrospective single and multicentre studies have found similar results [2–4]. What is new is the inclusion of patients who started in VATS and were converted to open surgery for major intraoperative complications. The study is therefore an intention-to-treat analysis and showed the real impact of VATS lobectomy. The authors reported a 4.5% incidence of conversion rate in their series. In this regard, this analysis adds to the existing literature mostly based on organizational databases and in which an intention-to-treat analysis is mostly unfeasible. It would be desirable that future comparative studies regarding VATS lobectomy would include patients converted to thoracotomy for major intraoperative complications to provide more realistic findings. A recent paper from the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS) database and endorsed by the ESTS Minimally Invasive Interest Group [5] showed similar results on a case-matched comparison between 2721 pairs of patients submitted to open versus VATS lobectomies. The authors found a 19% reduction in major cardiopulmonary morbidity (15.9 vs 19.6%) and a 47% reduction in in-hospital mortality (1 vs 1.9%) after VATS compared with thoracotomy. The two major differences between these two papers are that the ESTS analysis [5] is not an intention to treat one (there is no way to understand whether converted patients have been included among the VATS group as no specific variable is present at the moment in the ESTS database) and that the Laursen et al. [1] analysis is not matched. Although patients in the VATS group are slightly older, they had less comorbidities and their tumours were smaller compared with the open cases. This may have introduced an inherent selection bias. Matching, on the other hand, would have inevitably reduced the sample size and would have reduced the representativeness of the actual population, who were subject to this operation during the study period. This paper is certainly another confirmation of the positive impact of the minimally invasive approach on the early outcome of lung resection. Unfortunately, the authors did not analyse longterm survival in their cohort of patients. This would have been of utmost interest considering the highest number of lymph nodes harvested during VATS compared with open surgery in their series and the inclusion of patients converted to thoracotomy. The authors should be commended for a nicely written paper and for their effort to communicate a real clinical picture after this type of operation." @default.
• W565535850 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W565535850 creator A5085311725 @default.
• W565535850 date "2015-06-18" @default.
• W565535850 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W565535850 title "Video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy: intention-to-treat analysis to convey realistic outcomes" @default.
• W565535850 cites W1982596813 @default.
• W565535850 cites W2025833593 @default.
• W565535850 cites W2038294554 @default.
• W565535850 cites W2120976103 @default.
• W565535850 cites W2129068191 @default.
• W565535850 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezv216" @default.
• W565535850 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26088591" @default.
• W565535850 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W565535850 type Work @default.
• W565535850 sameAs 565535850 @default.
• W565535850 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W565535850 countsByYear W5655358502017 @default.
• W565535850 countsByYear W5655358502023 @default.
• W565535850 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W565535850 hasAuthorship W565535850A5085311725 @default.
• W565535850 hasBestOaLocation W5655358501 @default.
• W565535850 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W565535850 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W565535850 hasConcept C2778211507 @default.
• W565535850 hasConcept C2779056968 @default.
• W565535850 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W565535850 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W565535850 hasConceptScore W565535850C141071460 @default.
• W565535850 hasConceptScore W565535850C15744967 @default.
• W565535850 hasConceptScore W565535850C2778211507 @default.
• W565535850 hasConceptScore W565535850C2779056968 @default.
• W565535850 hasConceptScore W565535850C41008148 @default.
• W565535850 hasConceptScore W565535850C71924100 @default.
• W565535850 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W565535850 hasLocation W5655358501 @default.
• W565535850 hasLocation W5655358502 @default.
• W565535850 hasOpenAccess W565535850 @default.
• W565535850 hasPrimaryLocation W5655358501 @default.
• W565535850 hasRelatedWork W2353146770 @default.
• W565535850 hasRelatedWork W2355800467 @default.
• W565535850 hasRelatedWork W2368528384 @default.
• W565535850 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W565535850 hasRelatedWork W2895572484 @default.
• W565535850 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W565535850 hasRelatedWork W3093585154 @default.
• W565535850 hasRelatedWork W4247787946 @default.
• W565535850 hasRelatedWork W2152745477 @default.
• W565535850 hasRelatedWork W3032320316 @default.
• W565535850 hasVolume "49" @default.
• W565535850 isParatext "false" @default.
• W565535850 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W565535850 magId "565535850" @default.
• W565535850 workType "article" @default.