The Annals of Thoracic Surgery

2010

DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.02.012

|View full text |Cite

|

Sign up to set email alerts

|

Video-Assisted Mediastinoscopy Compared With Conventional Mediastinoscopy: Are We Doing Better?

¹

,

²

,

Christopher Compeau

³

et al.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Comments5

Citation Types

Supporting

3

Mentioning

37

Contrasting

1

Unclassified

3

Year Published

2011

2011

2023

2023

Publication Types

Select...

Book3

Article2

Other1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent6

Authors

Journals

Cited by 38 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

3

Mentioning

37

Contrasting

1

Unclassified

3

Order By: Relevance

“…Video-assisted mediastinoscopy (VAM) is also a safe procedure with comparable results with that of conventional in term of mortality (0%), morbidity (0.83-2.9%), accuracy (87.9-98.9%) and negative predictive values (83-98.6%) [6][7][8]. The main advantage is higher number of biospsies taken (VAM, 6-8.5; CM, 5-7.13), number of mediastinal lymph node stations sampled (VAM, 1.9-3.6; CM, 2.6-2.98) and number of station sampled [6][7][8], although no study directly compared the two techniques in a randomized fashion. Cho et al [6] carried out a comparative analysis of VAM and CM of 521 mediastinoscopies (CM, 222; VAM, 299).…”

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Major haemorrhagic complication requiring sternotomy is rare, but can by fatal [3]. CM has high levels of accuracy (83.8-97.2%) [6][7][8] and negative predictive values (81-95.7%) [6][7][8].…”

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although only a small number of cases in this series underwent pulmonary resection after a negative VAM, there were no false negatives when the resected specimens from the routine lymphadenectomy at time of surgery were analysed. The number of patients included is small [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Major haemorrhagic complication requiring sternotomy is rare, but can by fatal [3].…”

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Training in CM can be difficult as the limited vision means that the trainer cannot monitor directly the dissection and the areas biopsied by the trainee as one operator and effectively see at any time [7]. Video-assisted mediastinoscopy (VAM) is also a safe procedure with comparable results with that of conventional in term of mortality (0%), morbidity (0.83-2.9%), accuracy (87.9-98.9%) and negative predictive values (83-98.6%) [6][7][8].…”

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Anraku et al [7] retrospectively reviewed 645 mediastinoscopies (CM, 505; VAM, 140). In this study, patients were divided into two groups: staging for lung cancer group (500 patients) and diagnostic group (145 patients).…”

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Is video mediastinoscopy a safer and more effective procedure than conventional mediastinoscopy?

¹

,

²

,

³

2011

Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A best evidence topic in cardiothoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether videoassisted mediastinoscopy (VAM) is a more effective procedure than conventional mediastinoscopy (CM). A total of 108 papers were identified using the search as discussed below. Of which, eight papers presented the best evidence to answer the clinical question as they included a sufficient number of patients to reach conclusions regarding the issues of interest for this review. Complications, complication rates, number of lymph nodes biopsies, number of stations sampled and training opportunities were included in the assessment. The author, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes, results and study weaknesses of the papers are tabulated. Literature search revealed that CM is a safe procedure associated with low mortality (0-0.05%) and morbidity (0-5.3%). CM has high levels of accuracy (83.8-97.2%) and negative predictive value (81-95.7%). Training in CM can be difficult as the limited vision means that the trainer cannot monitor directly the dissection and the areas biopsied by the trainee as one operator and effectively see at any time. VAM is also a safe procedure with comparable results to that of CM in term of mortality (0%), morbidity (0.83-2.9%), accuracy (87.9-98.9%) and negative predictive values (83-98.6%). The main advantage is higher number of biospsies taken (VAM, 6-8.5; CM, 5-7.13) and number of mediastinal lymph node stations sampled (VAM, 1.9-3.6; CM, 2.6-2.98). VAM can be associated with more aggressive dissecting and that can lead to more complications. The use of VAM can provide a better and safer training opportunity since both trainer and trainee can share the magnified image on the monitor. All studies available are comparing heterogeneous groups of non-matched group of patients which can bias the outcomes reported. There is a lack of comprehensive randomized studies to compare both procedures and to support any preference towards VAM over CM. We conclude that there is actually very little objective evidence of VAM superiority over CM.

“…Video-assisted mediastinoscopy (VAM) is also a safe procedure with comparable results with that of conventional in term of mortality (0%), morbidity (0.83-2.9%), accuracy (87.9-98.9%) and negative predictive values (83-98.6%) [6][7][8]. The main advantage is higher number of biospsies taken (VAM, 6-8.5; CM, 5-7.13), number of mediastinal lymph node stations sampled (VAM, 1.9-3.6; CM, 2.6-2.98) and number of station sampled [6][7][8], although no study directly compared the two techniques in a randomized fashion. Cho et al [6] carried out a comparative analysis of VAM and CM of 521 mediastinoscopies (CM, 222; VAM, 299).…”

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Major haemorrhagic complication requiring sternotomy is rare, but can by fatal [3]. CM has high levels of accuracy (83.8-97.2%) [6][7][8] and negative predictive values (81-95.7%) [6][7][8].…”

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although only a small number of cases in this series underwent pulmonary resection after a negative VAM, there were no false negatives when the resected specimens from the routine lymphadenectomy at time of surgery were analysed. The number of patients included is small [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Major haemorrhagic complication requiring sternotomy is rare, but can by fatal [3].…”

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Training in CM can be difficult as the limited vision means that the trainer cannot monitor directly the dissection and the areas biopsied by the trainee as one operator and effectively see at any time [7]. Video-assisted mediastinoscopy (VAM) is also a safe procedure with comparable results with that of conventional in term of mortality (0%), morbidity (0.83-2.9%), accuracy (87.9-98.9%) and negative predictive values (83-98.6%) [6][7][8].…”

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Anraku et al [7] retrospectively reviewed 645 mediastinoscopies (CM, 505; VAM, 140). In this study, patients were divided into two groups: staging for lung cancer group (500 patients) and diagnostic group (145 patients).…”

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Is video mediastinoscopy a safer and more effective procedure than conventional mediastinoscopy?

¹

,

²

,

³

2011

Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A best evidence topic in cardiothoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether videoassisted mediastinoscopy (VAM) is a more effective procedure than conventional mediastinoscopy (CM). A total of 108 papers were identified using the search as discussed below. Of which, eight papers presented the best evidence to answer the clinical question as they included a sufficient number of patients to reach conclusions regarding the issues of interest for this review. Complications, complication rates, number of lymph nodes biopsies, number of stations sampled and training opportunities were included in the assessment. The author, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes, results and study weaknesses of the papers are tabulated. Literature search revealed that CM is a safe procedure associated with low mortality (0-0.05%) and morbidity (0-5.3%). CM has high levels of accuracy (83.8-97.2%) and negative predictive value (81-95.7%). Training in CM can be difficult as the limited vision means that the trainer cannot monitor directly the dissection and the areas biopsied by the trainee as one operator and effectively see at any time. VAM is also a safe procedure with comparable results to that of CM in term of mortality (0%), morbidity (0.83-2.9%), accuracy (87.9-98.9%) and negative predictive values (83-98.6%). The main advantage is higher number of biospsies taken (VAM, 6-8.5; CM, 5-7.13) and number of mediastinal lymph node stations sampled (VAM, 1.9-3.6; CM, 2.6-2.98). VAM can be associated with more aggressive dissecting and that can lead to more complications. The use of VAM can provide a better and safer training opportunity since both trainer and trainee can share the magnified image on the monitor. All studies available are comparing heterogeneous groups of non-matched group of patients which can bias the outcomes reported. There is a lack of comprehensive randomized studies to compare both procedures and to support any preference towards VAM over CM. We conclude that there is actually very little objective evidence of VAM superiority over CM.

Thoracic Cavity Application of NOTES

¹

,

²

,

³

2012

Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

No abstract

Video Mediastinoscopy Versus Standard Mediastinoscopy

¹

,

Harrison-Phipps

²

2014

Difficult Decisions in Surgery: An Evidence-Based Approach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

No abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Product

Browser Extension Assistant by scite Citation Statement Search Reference Check Visualizations Dashboards Explore Journals Explore Organizations Explore Funders Embedding Badge Embedding Citation Search Pricing

Resources

Blog Help & FAQ Accessibility Statement API Terms For Universities & Governments For Researchers For Publishers For Corporate, Pharma & Enterprise Author Marketing Become an Affiliate Get an organization trial or quote scite Data & Services

About

News & Press Careers Read our Paper Coverage

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.