ArticleBMC surgery2024
Laser-guided percutaneous microwave ablation for lung nodules: a promising approach with reduced operation time.
Article in BMC surgery, 2024. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary nodule ablation is an effective method for treating pulmonary nodules. This study is based on the traditional CT-guided percutaneous microwave ablation (MWA) of pulmonary nodules. By comparing laser guidance technology with freehand method, this study aims to explore the safety and efficacy and patients' pain scores of these two approaches.
methodsThis study retrospectively analyzed 126 patients who underwent CT-guided percutaneous lung ablation at the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from April 2020 to April 2024. Based on the guidance method, we divided those patients into the laser guidance group and the freehand group. The primary outcome such as operation time, the number of ablation needle adjustments, postoperative pain scores, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complications were analyzed.
resultsThe laser guidance group had a significantly shorter mean operation time compared to the freehand group (39.3 ± 13.65 min vs. 43.82 ± 19.12 min, p < 0.01), and in the laser guidance group, fewer ablation needle adjustments were required than in the freehand group (3.3 ± 1.34 time vs. 4.37 ± 1.39 times, p < 0.001). As compared to the freehand group, the laser guidance group had fewer cases of mild pneumothorax (13.16% vs. 38.33%, p < 0.05). The postoperative pain score at 1 h and 1 day of the two groups showed no statistical difference.
conclusionBoth methods are safe and effective. The laser guidance technology significantly reduces the number of puncture adjustments and the operation time compared to the freehand method. Laser guidance technology effectively reduces the incidence of mild pneumothorax.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.