Scholarlink

Background <p>Video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) is the preferred approach for lung resection. Magnetic anchoring technology (MAT) utilizes magnetic forces for organ retraction and improves surgical field exposure. This trial aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of MAT-assisted VATS for lung resection.</p> Methods <p>This single-center randomized controlled trial (registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000029676) enrolled 40 patients scheduled for lung resection and randomly assigned them to MAT-assisted VATS (Group A, <i>n</i> = 20) or conventional VATS (Group B, <i>n</i> = 20). The primary outcomes included surgical field exposure efficacy, intraoperative collateral injuries, and operator-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes included surgeon satisfaction score, number of assistants, and perioperative recovery metrics with a 1-month postoperative follow-up.</p> Results <p>Surgical field exposure efficacy (graded as Excellent, Satisfactory, Normal, and Poor) was as follows: Group A, 15, 4, 1, and 0 cases; and Group B, 17, 2, 1, and 0 cases (<i>p</i> = 0.115). Intraoperative collateral injuries (graded as None, Mild, Moderate, and Severe) were as follows: Group A, 13, 6, 1, and 0 cases; Group B, 9, 6, 3, and 2 cases (<i>p</i> = 0.304). No significant differences were observed in the operative time (<i>p</i> = 0.136), intraoperative blood loss (<i>p</i> = 0.380), postoperative drainage tube removal time (<i>p</i> = 0.180), time to extubation (<i>p</i> = 0.529), time to ambulation (<i>p</i> = 0.260), total hospitalization duration (<i>p</i> = 0.685), or postoperative hospitalization duration (<i>p</i> = 0.305). Surgeon satisfaction score was significantly higher in Group A (<i>p</i> = 0.003). Moreover, MAT use markedly reduced dependence on surgical assistants, with fewer cases requiring two assistants in Group A (<i>p</i> = 0.006). The magnetic anchoring devices demonstrated seamless operability, with no adverse events reported during postoperative follow-up.</p> Conclusions <p>MAT-assisted VATS lung resection is as effective and safe as conventional VATS.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Safety and efficacy of magnetic-anchoring vs conventional video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lung resection: a randomized controlled trial

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月17日

查看全文
  • Chenao Yu,
  • Tianren Wang,
  • Nanzheng Chen,
  • Xinju Li,
  • Xinru Lv,
  • Haozhen Xu,
  • Runjia Liang,
  • Changwei Li,
  • Aoran Liu,
  • Xiaohai Cui,
  • Jiangtao You,
  • Yi Lv,
  • Yong Zhang

摘要

Background

Video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) is the preferred approach for lung resection. Magnetic anchoring technology (MAT) utilizes magnetic forces for organ retraction and improves surgical field exposure. This trial aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of MAT-assisted VATS for lung resection.

Methods

This single-center randomized controlled trial (registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000029676) enrolled 40 patients scheduled for lung resection and randomly assigned them to MAT-assisted VATS (Group A, n = 20) or conventional VATS (Group B, n = 20). The primary outcomes included surgical field exposure efficacy, intraoperative collateral injuries, and operator-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes included surgeon satisfaction score, number of assistants, and perioperative recovery metrics with a 1-month postoperative follow-up.

Results

Surgical field exposure efficacy (graded as Excellent, Satisfactory, Normal, and Poor) was as follows: Group A, 15, 4, 1, and 0 cases; and Group B, 17, 2, 1, and 0 cases (p = 0.115). Intraoperative collateral injuries (graded as None, Mild, Moderate, and Severe) were as follows: Group A, 13, 6, 1, and 0 cases; Group B, 9, 6, 3, and 2 cases (p = 0.304). No significant differences were observed in the operative time (p = 0.136), intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.380), postoperative drainage tube removal time (p = 0.180), time to extubation (p = 0.529), time to ambulation (p = 0.260), total hospitalization duration (p = 0.685), or postoperative hospitalization duration (p = 0.305). Surgeon satisfaction score was significantly higher in Group A (p = 0.003). Moreover, MAT use markedly reduced dependence on surgical assistants, with fewer cases requiring two assistants in Group A (p = 0.006). The magnetic anchoring devices demonstrated seamless operability, with no adverse events reported during postoperative follow-up.

Conclusions

MAT-assisted VATS lung resection is as effective and safe as conventional VATS.