Key result
Video-assisted thoracoscopy for pericardial effusion resulted in a significantly longer operative time (P<0.001) compared to the surgical approach, with no recurrence or mortality in either group.
Why the study?
Does a video-assisted thoracoscopy approach improve outcomes compared to a surgical approach in patients with pericardial effusion?
Cohort (n=30)
No
Does a video-assisted thoracoscopy approach improve outcomes compared to a surgical approach in patients with pericardial effusion?
p-value: p=<0.001
Video-assisted thoracoscopy is an effective and safe alternative to classic surgical approaches for creating a pericardial window, yielding similar clinical outcomes despite a longer operative time.
Authors
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May support VATS as alternative for pericardial windows despite longer time; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Magdi Ibrahim Ahmad Muhammad (2010) conducted a cohort in Pericardial effusion (n=30). Video-assisted thoracoscopy procedure vs. Surgical (transthoracic or subxiphoid) procedure was evaluated on Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative variables, morbidity, recurrence, and survival (p=<0.001). Video-assisted thoracoscopy for pericardial effusion resulted in a significantly longer operative time (P<0.001) compared to the surgical approach, with no recurrence or mortality in either group.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: