PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 27, 2026Langenbeck s Archives of Surgery0 citationsOpen Access

Perioperative efficacy of subxiphoid and intercostal thoracoscopic thymectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

SZShouying ZhuXuzhou Medical CollegeJPJiajun PanXuzhou Medical CollegeQZQixiang ZhaoXuzhou Medical College

Key Points

  • This research assesses the safety and efficacy of subxiphoid thoracoscopic thymectomy compared to intercostal thoracoscopic thymectomy for thymoma.
  • Systematic search in electronic databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase.
  • Utilized a random-effects model to analyze differences in surgical outcomes between SVATS and IVATS.
  • Included 14 cohort studies comprising 1,647 patients for the meta-analysis.
  • SVATS showed significantly lower intraoperative blood loss (MD: −14.65 ml; 95% CI: −22.17 to −7.1).
  • Postoperative drainage volume was also lower in the SVATS group (MD: −66.14 ml; 95% CI: −131.02 to −1.26).
  • Postoperative pain scores (SMD: −1.86; 95% CI: −2.37 to −1.35) and hospital stays (MD: −1.20 days; 95% CI: −1.62 to −0.78) favored SVATS.

Abstract

To assess the efficacy and safety of subxiphoid thoracoscopic thymectomy (SVATS) for thymoma using meta-analysis and to compare it with intercostal thoracoscopic thymectomy (IVATS). Electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase) were systematically searched for original studies comparing SVATS and IVATS. A random-effects model was used to evaluate differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage duration, postoperative hospital stay, visual analogue scale (VAS) score and postoperative complications between the two approaches. A total of 14 cohort studies, comprising 1,647 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The results indicated that the SVATS group had significantly lower intraoperative blood loss (mean differences MD: −14.65 ml; 95% confidence intervals CI: −22.17 to − 7.1), postoperative drainage volume (MD: −66.14 ml; 95% CI: −131.02 to − 1.26), postoperative drainage duration (MD: −0.73 days; 95% CI: −1.36 to − 0.11), postoperative pain score (standardised mean differences SMD: −1.86; 95% CI: −2.37 to − 1.35) and hospital stay (MD: −1.20 days; 95% CI: −1.62 to − 0.78) compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in operative time (MD: −10.36 min; 95% CI: −25.57 to 4.85) or total postoperative complications between the two groups. The SVATS method is effective and safe, with superior perioperative outcomes compared with IVATS. However, high-quality prospective studies are still needed to further validate these findings.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Zhu et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69eefc6dfede9185760d384ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-026-03998-4
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper