Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2026
Safety and efficacy of magnetic-anchoring vs conventional video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lung resection: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVideo-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) is the preferred approach for lung resection. Magnetic anchoring technology (MAT) utilizes magnetic forces for organ retraction and improves surgical field exposure. This trial aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of MAT-assisted VATS for lung resection.
methodsThis single-center randomized controlled trial (registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000029676) enrolled 40 patients scheduled for lung resection and randomly assigned them to MAT-assisted VATS (Group A, n = 20) or conventional VATS (Group B, n = 20). The primary outcomes included surgical field exposure efficacy, intraoperative collateral injuries, and operator-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes included surgeon satisfaction score, number of assistants, and perioperative recovery metrics with a 1-month postoperative follow-up.
resultsSurgical field exposure efficacy (graded as Excellent, Satisfactory, Normal, and Poor) was as follows: Group A, 15, 4, 1, and 0 cases; and Group B, 17, 2, 1, and 0 cases (p = 0.115). Intraoperative collateral injuries (graded as None, Mild, Moderate, and Severe) were as follows: Group A, 13, 6, 1, and 0 cases; Group B, 9, 6, 3, and 2 cases (p = 0.304). No significant differences were observed in the operative time (p = 0.136), intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.380), postoperative drainage tube removal time (p = 0.180), time to extubation (p = 0.529), time to ambulation (p = 0.260), total hospitalization duration (p = 0.685), or postoperative hospitalization duration (p = 0.305). Surgeon satisfaction score was significantly higher in Group A (p = 0.003). Moreover, MAT use markedly reduced dependence on surgical assistants, with fewer cases requiring two assistants in Group A (p = 0.006). The magnetic anchoring devices demonstrated seamless operability, with no adverse events reported during postoperative follow-up.
conclusionsMAT-assisted VATS lung resection is as effective and safe as conventional VATS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42467192What 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.