A Comparative Analysis of Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery and Thoracotomy in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in Terms of Their Oncological Efficacy in Resection: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is considered the standard procedure for surgical resection in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, there is still lingering speculation on its adequacy of lymph node (LN) dissection or sampling and the long-term survival benefits when compared to open thoracotomy. Given the above, we conducted a systematic review comparing VATS and thoracotomy in terms of their oncological effectiveness in resection. We explored major research literature databases and search engines such as MEDLINE, PubMed, PubMed Central, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate to find pertinent articles. After the meticulous screening, quality check, and applying relevant filters according to our eligibility criteria, we identified 16 studies relevant to our research question, out of which one was a randomized controlled trial, one meta-analysis, and 14 were observational studies. The study comprised 44,673 patients with NSCLC, out of whom 15,093 patients were operated by VATS and the remaining 29,580 patients by thoracotomy. The results indicate that VATS is equivalent to thoracotomy in total LNs (N1 + N2) and LN stations dissected. However, a thoracotomy may achieve slightly better mediastinal lymph node dissection (N2) in terms of assessing a greater number of mediastinal lymph nodes and nodal stations. This may be attributed to a better visual field during mediastinal nodal clearance by an open approach. Also, nodal upstaging was consistently more common with an open approach. In terms of long-term outcomes, both overall survival and disease-free survival rates were similar between the two groups, with VATS offering a slightly better survival benefit. Irrespective of the increased rates of nodal upstaging by an open approach, we conclude that VATS should be considered a highly efficient alternative to thoracotomy in both early and locally advanced NSCLC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".