SynthesisMedicine2017
Thymectomy via open surgery or robotic video assisted thoracic surgery: Can a recommendation already be made?
Synthesis in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Complications of robot-assisted thymectomy: A single-arm meta-analysis and systematic review.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2021Pooled it
- Minimally invasiveJournal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Article
- Relevance of robotic surgery for thymoma: a narrative review.Mediastinum (Hong Kong, China) · 2024Review
- Surgical treatment of thymic epithelial tumors: a narrative review.Mediastinum (Hong Kong, China) · 2024Review
- Robot-assisted and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for thymoma: comparison of the perioperative outcomes using inverse probability of treatment weighting method.Gland surgery · 2022Article
- Learning Curve of Robot-Assisted Thymectomy: Single Surgeon's 7-Year Experience.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- A case of thymic basaloid carcinoma with rectal carcinoma.International journal of surgery case reports · 2020Article
- Subxiphoid thymectomy with a double sternum retractor: a pilot study.Gland surgery · 2019Article
- Pediatric thymectomy: a study of national trends in demographics, short-term outcomes, and cost.Pediatric surgery international · 2019Article
- A systematic review of robotic versus open and video assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) approaches for thymectomy.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2019Review
- Robot-assisted thoracic surgery in Colombia: a multi-institutional initial experience.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2019Article
- Optimal management of thymic malignancies: current perspectives.Cancer management and research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobot-assisted minimally invasive surgery (RVATS) is a relatively new technique applied for thymectomies. Only few studies directly compare RVATS to the mainstay therapy, open surgery (sternotomy).
methodsA systematic search of the literature was performed in October 2016. The meta-analysis includes studies comparing robotassisted and open thymectomy regarding operation time, length of hospitalization, intraoperative blood loss, and chest-in-tube days, postoperative complications, reoperation, arrhythmic events, pleural effusion, and postoperative bleeding.
resultsOf 626 studies preliminary screened, 7 articles were included. There were no significant differences in comparison of operation time (-3.19 minutes [95% confidence interval, 95% CI -112.43 to 106.05]; P = .94), but patients undergoing RVATS spent significantly less time in hospital (-4.06 days [95% CI -7.98 to -0.13], P = .046). There were fewer chests-in-tube days (-2.50 days [95% CI -15.01 to 10.01]; P = .24) and less intraoperative blood loss (-256.84 mL [95% CI -627.47 to 113.80]; P = .10) observed in the RVATS group; due to a small number of studies, these results were not statistically significant. There were also less post-operative complications in the RVATS group (12 complications in 209 patients vs 51 complications in 259 patients); however, this difference was not statistical significant (odds ratio 0.27, 95% CI 0.07-1.12; P = .06).
conclusionsPatients undergoing RVATS spent less time in hospital than patients treated by open surgery (sternotomy). These patients tended to have less postoperative complications, less intraoperative blood loss, and fewer chest-in-tube days. We found evidence for the safety and feasibility of RVATS compared with open surgery, which has to be further confirmed in randomised controlled trials.
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.