| Literature DB >> 35546677 |
Musu Ala1,2, Junzhong Liu3, Jieli Kou4, Xinhua Wang5, Minfeng Sun5, Changcheng Hao6, Jianlin Wu7,8.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively analyse the potential influencing factors of CT-guided hook wire localization failure prior to thoracoscopic resection surgery of ground glass nodules (GGNs), and determine the main risk elements for localization failure.Entities:
Keywords: Ground glass nodule; Localization; Pneumothorax; Thoracoscopic surgery
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35546677 PMCID: PMC9092699 DOI: 10.1186/s13019-022-01866-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg ISSN: 1749-8090 Impact factor: 1.522
Fig. 1Flowchart of the study population
Fig. 258-year-old woman who underwent hook wire localization prior to VATS. a Hook wire (white arrow) was positioned next to the ground glass nodule (white triangle arrow) of the right upper lobe before thoracoscopic surgery. b Hook wire was seen on the pleura surface during thoracoscopic surgery. c The main pathology of the lesion after thoracoscopic resection (the white arrow shown the ground glass nodule)
The baseline characteristics of the participants and parameters related to localization
| Variable | Success (n = 351) | Failure (n = 21) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 58.95 ± 9.96 | 59.62 ± 10.33 | 0.764 |
| 0.825 | |||
| Male | 179 (51.0%) | 10 (47.6%) | |
| Female | 172 (49.0%) | 11 (52.4%) | |
| 0.532 | |||
| No | 256 (72.9%) | 14(66.7%) | |
| Yes | 95 (27.1%) | 7 (33.3%) | |
| 0.030 | |||
| No | 260 (74.1%) | 11 (52.4%) | |
| Yes | 91 (25.9%) | 10 (47.6%) | |
| Localization time (min) | 22.20 ± 10.52 | 19.14 ± 7.16 | 0.190 |
| Depth of nodule (mm) | 21.34 ± 9.17 | 15.52 ± 6.85 | 0.005 |
| Diameter (mm) | 8.99 ± 3.80 | 9.29 ± 3.47 | 0.732 |
| 0.002 | |||
| No | 329(94.0%) | 16 (72.2%) | |
| Yes | 21 (6.0%) | 5 (23.8%) | |
| 0.005 | |||
| No | 299 (85.2%) | 13 (14.8%) | |
| Yes | 52 (69.9%) | 8 (38.1%) | |
| 0.450 | |||
| Supine | 112 (31.9%) | 9 (42.9%) | |
| Prone | 153 (43.6%) | 9 (42.9%) | |
| Lateral | 86(24.5) | 3(14.3%) | |
| 0.737 | |||
| Upper and middle | 197 (56.1%) | 11 (52.4%) | |
| lower | 154 (43.9%) | 10 (47.6%) | |
| < 0.001 | |||
| No | 222(63.2%) | 3(14.3%) | |
| Yes | 129(36.8%) | 18(85.7%) | |
| 0.075 | |||
| No | 301(85.8%) | 15(71.4%) | |
| Yes | 50(14.2%) | 6(28.6%) |
Univariate and multivariable analysis of baseline and CT features
| Univariable analysis | Multivariable analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | P value | OR | 95% CI | P value | |
| Age | 1.007 | 0.963–1.053 | 0.763 | |||
| Male | 1.0 | |||||
| Female | 1.145 | 0.471–2.814 | 0.764 | |||
| No | 1.0 | |||||
| Yes | 1.347 | 0.528–3.440 | 0.533 | |||
| No | 1.0 | |||||
| Yes | 2.597 | 1.050–6.361 | 0.035 | 1.346 | 0.494–3.595 | 0.552 |
| Location time (min) | 0.956 | 0.898–1.019 | 0.166 | |||
| Depth of nodule (mm) | 0.910 | 0.850–0.973 | 0.006 | 0.942 | 0.875–1.014 | 0.113 |
| No | 1.0 | |||||
| Yes | 4.896 | 1.489–13.939 | 0.005 | 2.168 | 0.613–6.773 | 0.199 |
| No | 1.0 | |||||
| Yes | 3.538 | 1.343–8.827 | 0.008 | 1.003 | 0.343–2.806 | 0.995 |
| Diameter (mm) | 1.020 | 0.912–1.141 | 0.731 | |||
| Supine | 1.0 | |||||
| Prone | 2.304 | 0.605–8.767 | 0.221 | |||
| lateral | 1.686 | 0.445–6.396 | 0.442 | |||
| Upper and middle | 1.0 | |||||
| Lower | 0.860 | 0.356–2.077 | 0.737 | |||
| No | 1.0 | |||||
| Yes | 10.326 | 3.414–44.684 | < 0.001 | 5.998 | 1.680–28.342 | 0.010 |
| No | 1.0 | |||||
| Yes | 1.552 | 0.909–2.497 | 0.083 | |||