Impact of single-port versus three-port video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy on postoperative pain and quality of life in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer patients: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the impact of these two techniques on postoperative pain and quality of life in early-stage NSCLC patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CNKI databases. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing single-port and three-port VATS lobectomy for early-stage NSCLC were included. The primary outcomes were operating time, postoperative complications, and 24-hour postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess study quality. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. RESULTS: Fifteen studies involving 3,228 patients (801 in the single-port group and 2427 in the three-port group) were included. The meta-analysis revealed that single-port VATS lobectomy was associated with a longer operating time (SMD: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.93, p < 0.001) compared to the three-port approach. However, single-port VATS demonstrated a lower incidence of postoperative complications (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.90, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in 24-hour postoperative VAS pain scores between the two groups (SMD: 0.02, 95% CI: -1.41 to 1.45, p > 0.05), although substantial heterogeneity was observed (I² = 98.1%). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that single-port VATS lobectomy may offer advantages in terms of reduced postoperative complications compared to the three-port approach, despite longer operating times. However, the impact on immediate postoperative pain remains inconclusive due to high heterogeneity among studies.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".