MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413100113 · doi:10.5090/jcs.25.037

The Impact of the Number of Ports on Perioperative Outcomes Following Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4413100113 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fegita Beatrix Pajala, Caroline Tanadi, Raden Haryo Aribowo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chest Surgery · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisPerioperativeVideo-assisted thoracoscopic surgeryLung cancerConfidence intervalSurgerySystematic reviewRandomized controlled trialPort (circuit theory)MEDLINEInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has emerged as a less invasive technique for treating resected lung cancer compared with open surgery. In recent years, the uniportal VATS technique has gained popularity for lung resection in small nodules and ground glass lesions. However, it remains unclear whether single-port VATS offers more favorable perioperative outcomes than multi-port approaches. This study aims to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of single-port versus 2-port and 3-port VATS in patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. A literature search was conducted across 5 online databases (PubMed, CENTRAL, ProQuest, SAGE, and ScienceDirect). Meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Study quality was assessed using the risk of bias tool in randomized trials (RoB 2) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, while meta-analysis was conducted with Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4. This study was registered in PROSPERO under protocol number CRD42025634395. A comprehensive initial search identified 9,178 records, of which 22 studies were included in the systematic review and 19 were incorporated into the meta-analysis, with a total of 3,324 participants. Compared with 3-port VATS, single-port VATS was associated with significantly lower intra-operative blood loss (mean difference [MD], -10.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], -17.37 to -3.66; p=0.003), shorter chest tube duration (MD, -0.71; 95% CI, -1.07 to -0.35; p<0.001), lower postoperative drainage volume (MD, -68.25; 95% CI, -117.64 to -18.87; p=0.007), shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD, -1.00; 95% CI, -1.65 to -0.35; p=0.003), and lower pain scores on postoperative day 1 and day 3 (MD, -0.73; 95% CI, -1.19 to -0.28; p=0.002; MD, -0.59; 95% CI, -0.85 to -0.32; p<0.001), as well as a reduced rate of postoperative complications (MD, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99; p=0.04). No significant differences were observed between single-port and 2-port or 3-port VATS regarding operation time and number of dissected lymph nodes. The risk of bias was low, and the overall certainty was moderate. Single-port VATS is safe and feasible, with short-term outcomes comparable to those of 2-port and 3-port approaches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.049
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chest SurgerySame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207