Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Central MessageThoracic surgeons have pushed the technical boundaries of our specialty with multiple success stories, but careful selection and long-term outcomes should still be our guiding principles.See Article page 323. Thoracic surgeons have pushed the technical boundaries of our specialty with multiple success stories, but careful selection and long-term outcomes should still be our guiding principles. See Article page 323. In this issue of JTCVS Techniques, Galvaing and colleagues1Galvaing G. Sassi S. Dagenais F. Conti M. Triple-sleeve lobectomy for non–small cell lung cancer: lessons from a case.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Tech. 2020; 4: 323-325Google Scholar present a challenging but gratifying case of triple-sleeve right upper lobectomy, where reconstruction of the bronchus, pulmonary artery, and vena cava was necessary for the success of resection. The patient, a 66-year-old woman, had refused chemotherapy and was not a surgical candidate for a pneumonectomy. Although the caval resection and reconstruction was not planned, it was rapidly executed due to the appearance of superior vena cava syndrome intraoperatively. The patient lived 4 years after the initial resection—a true feat without chemotherapy—and died from a cause not related to lung cancer. The report is rich in technical lessons learned from this case, the likes of which only 4 others have been reported. One cannot help but wonder why that is. Certainly, it would not be because of the paucity of T4 lung tumors. Could it be because many of these patients are receiving a pneumonectomy? Or is it because such operations have been tried and were not successful? So how do we measure the success of such cases? The most valuable lesson that I learned from this case is not technical. It is that the feasibility of these cases is measured by a large number of critical steps—patient selection, surgeon selection, investigations, execution, and postoperative care. However, the success of these cases is measured only by one critical metric—survival. The authors waited 4 years to publish this report and only did so after it was determined that this patient will never have lung cancer recurrence. In other words, the technical lessons from this case are only worth sharing if the operation was beneficial to the patient. We continue to push the technical boundaries of our specialty with multiple success stories, but we should never lose focus of why we do what we do. We don't do it because we can. We do it because it saves a life, for more than 90 days. Sometimes, the difference is not clearly obvious. Triple-sleeve lobectomy for non–small cell lung cancer: Lessons from a caseJTCVS TechniquesVol. 4PreviewThe combination of a bronchial and arterial (double) sleeve lobectomy associated with the prosthetic replacement of the superior vena cava (SVC) has rarely been reported. Herein, we report such a case and highlight operative technique and pitfalls. Full-Text PDF Open Access
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».