You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
| Title |
Thoracotomy is better than thoracoscopic lobectomy in the lymph node dissection of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12957-016-1038-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wenxiong Zhang, Yiping Wei, Han Jiang, Jianjun Xu, Dongliang Yu |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to investigate which surgical method is better in lymph node (LN) dissection of lung cancer. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar was performed to identify studies comparing thoracoscopic lobectomy (video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) group) and thoracotomy (open group) in LN dissection. Twenty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria and involved 2763 patients in the VATS group and 3484 patients in the open group. The meta-analysis showed that fewer total LNs (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.52 to -0.73, p < 0.0001) and N2 LNs (95% CI -1.25 to -0.10, p = 0.02) were dissected in the VATS group. A similar number of total LN stations, N2 LN stations, and N1 LNs were harvested in both groups. Only one study reported that fewer N1 LN stations were dissected in the VATS group (1.4 ± 0.5 vs. 1.6 ± 0.6, p = 0.04). Open lobectomy could achieve better LN dissection efficacy than thoracoscopic lobectomy in the treatment of lung cancer, especially in the N2 LNs dissection. These findings require validation by high-quality, large-scale randomized controlled trials. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 17% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 10% |
| Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 6 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 70% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 8 | 27% |