The state of uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in North America: a survey of thoracic surgeons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been an exponential growth in the research and development of uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). In the context of the 2017 Annual Asian Single-Port VATS Symposium held in Shanghai, China, we sought to describe current the state of uniportal VATS in North America and explore factors that could influence future adoption. METHODS: In March 2017, a five-question survey was distributed to North American Thoracic Surgeons in order to obtain their opinion regarding the uniportal VATS approach to pulmonary resection. Responses were summarized and statistical comparisons of categorical variables were performed using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: The estimated response rate to the survey was 16.5% (99/600). The majority of respondents were experienced surgeons with 41.4% (41/99) having been in practice 11-20 years. The majority (70%; 69/99) of surgeons had never performed a uniportal VATS procedure. When surgeons were asked to state what could potentially convince them to adopt uniportal VATS, scientific evidence of superiority (86%; 85/99) and/or of superior ergonomics (39%; 39/99), attendance to focused conferences with a practical simulation component (38%; 38/99), and the availability of surgical proctorship (9%; 9/99) were the most commonly selected responses. CONCLUSIONS: This survey is the first of its kind to provide a glimpse into the status of the uniportal VATS in North America. The responses suggest that there are few early adopters of this approach as compared to other parts of the world. The lack of perceived advantages to uniportal VATS and the need for more comparative evidence to other established approaches appear to be major obstacles to more widespread adoption in North America.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".