Systematic review and meta‑analysis of factors predicting postoperative lung function after lung cancer resection.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques Pub Date : 2024-07-31 eCollection Date: 2024-10-16 DOI:10.20452/wiitm.2024.17892
Hongling Wang, Lihong He, Xiaoyun Hu, Gongxue Xian
{"title":"Systematic review and meta‑analysis of factors predicting postoperative lung function after lung cancer resection.","authors":"Hongling Wang, Lihong He, Xiaoyun Hu, Gongxue Xian","doi":"10.20452/wiitm.2024.17892","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Lung resection continues to be the most effective treatment for early‑stage lung cancer. Prediction of postoperative lung function is particularly important when evaluating patient eligibility for surgery, as it helps assess the likelihood of experiencing difficulty breathing after the operation.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>We aimed to identify the most common methods used to predict postoperative lung function in clinical practice and to compare their accuracy.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta‑analysis were performed to synthesize research focused on the prediction of postoperative lung function. A total of 10 studies were included in the analysis. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was utilized to evaluate the risk of bias in the studies. Additionally, a meta‑analysis of the mean difference between the predicted and measured values of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV<sub>1</sub>) was conducted. The I<sup>2</sup> value was computed as a metric of coherence among studies, while funnel plots and the Begg test were used to evaluate the likelihood of publication bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analyzed studies had a low risk of bias. The meta‑analysis showed that computed tomography (CT) volume and density measurement had the highest level of accuracy for predicting postoperative FEV<sub>1</sub> , with a mean difference between the predicted and actual value of 83 ml (95% CI, 41-116).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results indicate that using CT volume and density is the optimal method for predicting postoperative FEV<sub>1</sub> . Additional research is necessary to establish the connection between the type of surgical procedure, adopted thresholds, and outcomes reported by patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":49361,"journal":{"name":"Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques","volume":"19 3","pages":"289-298"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11867271/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20452/wiitm.2024.17892","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Lung resection continues to be the most effective treatment for early‑stage lung cancer. Prediction of postoperative lung function is particularly important when evaluating patient eligibility for surgery, as it helps assess the likelihood of experiencing difficulty breathing after the operation.

Aim: We aimed to identify the most common methods used to predict postoperative lung function in clinical practice and to compare their accuracy.

Materials and methods: A systematic review and meta‑analysis were performed to synthesize research focused on the prediction of postoperative lung function. A total of 10 studies were included in the analysis. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was utilized to evaluate the risk of bias in the studies. Additionally, a meta‑analysis of the mean difference between the predicted and measured values of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was conducted. The I2 value was computed as a metric of coherence among studies, while funnel plots and the Begg test were used to evaluate the likelihood of publication bias.

Results: The analyzed studies had a low risk of bias. The meta‑analysis showed that computed tomography (CT) volume and density measurement had the highest level of accuracy for predicting postoperative FEV1 , with a mean difference between the predicted and actual value of 83 ml (95% CI, 41-116).

Conclusions: The results indicate that using CT volume and density is the optimal method for predicting postoperative FEV1 . Additional research is necessary to establish the connection between the type of surgical procedure, adopted thresholds, and outcomes reported by patients.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
23.50%
发文量
48
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques serves as a forum for exchange of multidisciplinary experiences in fields such as: surgery, gynaecology, urology, gastroenterology, neurosurgery, ENT surgery, cardiac surgery, anaesthesiology and radiology, as well as other branches of medicine dealing with miniinvasive techniques.
期刊最新文献
Clinical efficacy of various resuscitation fluids in the management of sepsis in postoperative surgical and trauma patients: a systematic review and meta--analysis. Effects of dexmedetomidine combined with intravenous general anesthesia on hemodynamics and inflammatory factors in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Endoscopy-assisted anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with internal fixation vs conventional surgery in the treatment of cervical disc herniation. Results of 1‑year follow‑up after umbilical hernia with rectus abdominis muscle diastasis repair using endoscopic subcutaneous onlay approach (SCOLA). Systematic review and meta‑analysis of factors predicting postoperative lung function after lung cancer resection.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1