Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Chinese Journal of L...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Chinese Journal of Lung Cancer
Article . 2017
Data sources: DOAJ
versions View all 3 versions
addClaim

[Electrocautery versus Stapler for Intersegmental Plane Dissection in Complete Thoracoscopic Segmentectomy].

Authors: Haibo LIU; Gang LIN; Shijie ZHANG; Weiming HUANG; Xueqian SHANG; Jian LI;

[Electrocautery versus Stapler for Intersegmental Plane Dissection in Complete Thoracoscopic Segmentectomy].

Abstract

Complete thoracoscopic segmentectomy gained great attention with the high detection rate of early lung cancer. Electrocautery and stapler are most commonly used in dividing the intersegmental plane in pulmonary segmentectomy. However, few reports comparing the two methods exist; all of which contrapose an open approach because complete thoracoscopic approach is not mentioned. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of the two methods in intersegmental plane dissection during complete thoracoscopic pulmonary segmentectomy.A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was obtained for 58 consecutive patients who were treated by segmentectomy between September 2013 and March 2016 at a single center. The patients were divided into two groups according to the methods in intersegmental plane dissection. Thirty patients underwent intersegmental plane dissection with electrocautery (electrocautery group), and 28 patients underwent the same process using staplers (stapler group). Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables for patients were compared between two groups.The operative time of electrocautery group was longer than that of the stapler group [(248.70±54.46) min vs (209.39±67.25) min, P=0.017]. Furthermore, no statistical difference was found between two groups in intraoperative blood loss (60.00 mL vs 65.00 mL), total drainage volume (445.00 mL vs 590.00 mL), drainage volume in first 3 days after surgery [(455.33±318.333) mL vs (422.32±194.95) mL], duration of chest tube drainage [(4.20±2.07) d vs (4.11±1.61) d], postoperative hospital stay [(6.33±2.98) d vs (5.89±1.55) d], and incidence of minor postoperative complication [16.7% (5/30) vs 7.1% (2/28)].Although operative time was longer in electrocautery group than in stapler group, using electrocautery for intersegmental plane dissection in complete thoracoscopic segmentectomy appeared to be a very safe and feasible procedure compared with stapler.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Segmentectomy, Male, Lung Neoplasms, Thoracoscopy, Video-assisted thoracic surgery, Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens, Intersegmental plane, Middle Aged, Postoperative Complications, Treatment Outcome, Elcetrocautery, Electrocoagulation, Humans, Stapling device, Female, Pneumonectomy, RC254-282, Retrospective Studies

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    5
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
5
Average
Average
Average
gold
Related to Research communities
Cancer Research