Retrospective review of two-port thoracoscopic (VATS) wedge bullectomy and lung wedge biopsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) involving wedge resection of bulla and lung biopsy can be done by two or three-port incisions. Controversy exists as to which approach is superior. We communicate our experience with two-port VATS for these procedures. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the charts of all patients who underwent a VATS procedure by two-port incisions from July 2001 to July 2007 by two thoracic surgeons (S.C., S.C.) We included in the study all patients who underwent wedge resections for primary or secondary spontaneous pneumothorax and biopsies for pulmonary infiltrates and small nodules. Results: A total of 319 patients’ charts were examined, and 217 of whom had undergone two-port incisions fitted in the inclusion criteria. There were 136 (65.7%) males and 81 (37.3%) females with a mean age of 47 years. Pneumothorax was the main diagnosis for 98 (45%) patients, followed by pulmonary infiltrates for 69 (32%) patients and lung nodules for 50 (23%) patients. The mean operative time and the number of post-op days for chest tube removal and to discharge home in each group have also been recorded. There were few post-operative complications, such as 11 (5%) cases of persistent air leak, 11 (5%) cases of transient fever of unknown origin, 3 (1.4%) cases of pneumonia, 3 (1.4%) cases of bleeding within, one reoperated, and 1 (0.46%) case of C. difficile colitis. The 30-day mortality was 0%. Conclusion: The thoracoscopic (VATS) wedge biopsy via two-port incisions is a safe operation for patients presenting with pneumothorax or requiring a lung biopsy. A two-port approach seems to be a reasonable alternative to three-port incision procedures for these types of diagnosis, regarding post-operative pain and cosmetic benefits particularly for young patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".