ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2017
Feasibility of four-arm robotic lobectomy as solo surgery in patients with clinical stage I lung cancer.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robotic-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of robot-assisted thoracic surgery versus video-assisted thoracic surgery in the treatment of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- The robotic PIANO: a critical narrative review of surgeon-controlled operative polyphony, human factors, and robotic training.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Current state of evidence for RATS lobectomy for NSCLC.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Review
- Long-term outcomes of robotic versus video-assisted pulmonary lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of reconstructed patient data.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- Uniportal video-assisted thoracic surgery, and the uni-surgeon: new words for the contemporary world.Journal of visualized surgery · 2018Article
- Is robotic surgery for NSCLC innovative enough?Journal of thoracic disease · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study was performed to investigate the feasibility of four-arm robotic lobectomy (FARL) as a solo surgical technique in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Early outcome and long-term survival of FARL were compared with those of video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy (VATL).
methodsProspective enrollment of patients with clinical stage I NSCLC undergoing FARL or VATL (20 patients in each group) was planned. Interim analysis for early postoperative outcome was performed after the initial 10 cases in each group.
resultsThe study was terminated early because of safety issues in the FARL group after enrollment of 12 FARL and 17 VATL patients from 2011 to 2012. There were no differences in clinical characteristics between groups. Lobectomy time and total operation time were significantly longer in the FARL group (P=0.003). There were three life-threatening events in the FARL group (2 bleedings, 1 bronchus tear) that necessitated thoracotomy conversion in 1 patient. There were no differences in other operative outcomes including pain score, complications, or length of hospital stay. Pathologic stage and number of dissected lymph nodes (LNs) were also comparable. During a follow-up of 48.9±9.5 months, recurrence was identified in 2 (16.7%) patients in FARL group and 3 (23.5%) in VATL group. Five-year overall survival (100%
conclusionsFARL as solo surgery could not be recommended because of safety issues. It required a longer operation time and had no benefits over VATL in terms of early postoperative outcome or long-term survival.
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.