Effectiveness and safety of different wire types for preoperative localization of pulmonary nodules: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

Wire localization systems are widely used for perioperative lung nodule localization. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of five wire types (barb-thorn, double-thorn, four-hook, spiral, and Q-type) for preoperative localization.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched to December 2024 to retrieve data and assess risk of bias. Meta-analysis used a random effects model to obtain pooled estimates and prediction intervals (PI) for success rates, complication rates, and pain scores. Heterogeneity was explored in stratified analyses.

RESULTS

80 studies involving 9,996 procedures across 9,049 patients were included. The pooled technical success rate for localization was 98% (95% CI: 0.98-0.99; PI: 96%-100%), while VATS success reached 100% (95% CI: 1.00-1.00; PI: 99%-100%). Major and minor complications were 0% (95% CI: 0.00-0.00; PI: 0%-1%) and 43% (95% CI: 0.36-0.50; PI: 0%-100%) (75 studies). However, Q-type wire demonstrated lower success rates and a higher risk of major complications compared to other wire types. Studies with low/some concerns showed lower minor complication rates (21%; 95% CI: 0.08-0.34) compared to moderate (44%; 95% CI: 0.35-0.52) and high-quality studies (46%; 95% CI: 0.31-0.61). Pain scores (7 studies) averaged 3.41 (95% CI: 2.60-4.22; PI: 0.32-6.50) on a 0-10 scale.

CONCLUSIONS

Different wire types demonstrated high localization and VATS success rates with comparable safety profiles. However, Q-type wire demonstrated lower success rates and higher complication risks, though based on limited data. Further studies are required to confirm its efficacy and safety.