ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2016
Comparison of robotic and video-assisted thoracic surgery for lung cancer: a propensity-matched analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
39 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A comparison of perioperative outcomes for da Vinci robotic-assisted, laparoscopic and open surgery in oncologic procedures: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of evidence from China.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating Surgical Approaches in Early NSCLC: A Meta-Analysis of Robot-Assisted and Video-Assisted Techniques.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted vs video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on surgical quality, perioperative, and oncologic outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Open thoracotomy versus VATS versus RATS for segmentectomy: a systematic review & Bayesian network meta-analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted and video assisted thoracic surgery for early non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Radicality of mediastinal lymphadenectomy in anatomic lung resection for lung cancer: a comparative analysis of uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic and robotic-assisted thoracoscopic approaches.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Advancing minimally invasive thoracic surgery: comparative insights into uniportal and multiportal robotic approaches for non-small cell lung cancer.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of short-term outcomes, inflammatory markers, and complications in robotic-assistedJournal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Single-Port Robotic-Assisted Epicardial Lead Placement for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.Annals of thoracic surgery short reports · 2026Article
- Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis focusing on real-world clinical studies in the past 10 years.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Uniportal robotic-assisted left upper lobectomy with pulmonary artery reconstruction for a central lung cancer: a step-by-step surgical technique.Journal of visualized surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic-assisted mediastinal lymphadenectomy in lung cancer: a narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- Early adoption of robotic lung resection in an established video assisted thoracic surgery practice.Surgery open science · 2024Article
- Lymph node dissection in lung cancer surgery: a comparison between robot-assisted vs. video-assisted thoracoscopic approach.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Place of robotic surgery in completion lobectomy after anatomical segmentectomy.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2023Article
- Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes Between Robot-Assisted and Video-Assisted Segmentectomy for Small Pulmonary Nodules: A Propensity Score-Matching Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Robotic versus Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery for Lung Cancer: Short-Term Outcomes of a Propensity Matched Analysis.Cancers · 2023Article
- Midterm survival of imaging-assisted robotic lung segmentectomy for non-small-cell lung cancer.Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReports of comparison between robotic and thoracoscopic surgery for lung cancer are limited, we aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic and thoracoscopic anatomic pulmonary resection for lung cancer.
methodsA total of 184 patients with lung cancer underwent anatomic pulmonary resection by robotics or thoracoscopy. A propensity-matched analysis with incorporated preoperative variables was used to compare the perioperative outcomes between the two procedures.
resultsOverall, 71 patients underwent robotic pulmonary resection, including 64 lobectomies and 7 segmentectomies, while 113 patients underwent thoracoscopic lobectomy and segmentectomy. Propensity match produced 69 pairs. The mean length of postoperative stay (7.6±4.6 vs. 6.4±2.6 d, P=0.078), chest tube duration (5.3±3.7 vs. 4.4±1.7 d, P=0.056), number of lymph nodes retrieved (17.9±6.9 vs. 17.4±7.0, P=0.660), stations of lymph nodes resected (7.4±1.6 vs. 7.6±1.7, P=0.563), operative blood loss (53.9±29.3 vs. 50.3±37.9 mL, P=0.531), morbidity rates (42.0% vs. 30.4%, P=0.157) were similar between the robotics and thoracoscopy. However, robotics was associated with higher cost ($12,067±1,610 vs. $8,328±1,004, P<0.001), and longer operative time (136±40 vs. 111±28 min, P<0.001).
conclusionsRobotics seems to have higher hospital costs and longer operative time, without superior advantages in morbidity rates and oncologic efficiency. Further prospective randomized clinical trials were needed to validate both of its short- and long-term oncologic efficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.