SynthesisMedicine2017
Robotic versus thoracoscopic lung resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04209218 (Impact of Intraoperative Blood Pressure Management and Dexamethasone on Patient's Outcomes After Lung Cancer Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 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.
Impact of Intraoperative Blood Pressure Management and Dexamethasone on Patient's Outcomes After Lung Cancer Surgery: A 2 × 2 Factorial Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery for resectable lung cancer: efficacy, safety and surgical approaches - an umbrella review of meta-analyses.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled 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
- A comparative cost analysis study of pulmonary robotic and video-assisted lobectomy: results of a randomized controlled trial (BRAVO Study).Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2025Trial
- A Brazilian randomized study: Robotic-Assisted vs. Video-assisted lung lobectomy Outcomes (BRAVO trial).Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2022Trial
- 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
- Robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS): learning curve and outcomes for 200 consecutive pulmonary lobectomies in a Norwegian hospital.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Transfusion Risk in Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic-Assisted Surgery: A Propensity Score Matched Case-Control Study across Surgical Disciplines.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2025Article
- Short-term outcomes of robotic-Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Recent Advancements in Minimally Invasive Surgery for Early Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Systematic review of robotic video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery total pneumonectomy for lung cancer.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2024Review
- Enhanced recovery after surgery pathway leads to decreased length of stay for patients undergoing minimally invasive lung resection.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Place of robotic surgery in completion lobectomy after anatomical segmentectomy.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2023Article
- Robotic reconstruction of a left hemi-diaphragm defect with double mesh in a patient with trisomy 21.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- Minimally invasive thoracic surgery: robot-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023Review
- Review
- A cost analysis of robotic vs. video-assisted thoracic surgery: The impact of the learning curve and the COVID-19 pandemic.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Global Surgeon Opinion on the Impact of Surgical Access When Using Endocutters Across Specialties.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2023Article
- Robotic repair of traumatic bronchial disruption: A minimally invasive and multi-disciplinary approach to a complex constellation of injuries.Trauma case reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic video-assisted surgery (RVATS) has been reported to be equally effective to video-assisted surgery (VATS) in lung resection (pneumonectomy, lobectomy, and segmentectomy). Operation time, mortality, drainage duration, and length of hospitalization of patients undergoing either RVATS or VATS are compared in this meta-analysis.
methodsA systematic research for articles meeting our inclusion criteria was performed using the PubMed database. Articles published from January 2011 to January 2016 were included. We used results of reported mortality, operation time, drainage duration, and hospitalization length for performing this meta-analysis. Mean difference and logarithmic odds ratio were used as summary statistics.
resultsTen studies eligible were included into this analysis (5 studies for operation time, 3 studies for chest in tube days, 4 studies for length of hospitalization, and 6 studies for mortality). We were able to include 3375 subjects for RVATS and 58,683 subjects for VATS. Patients were mainly treated for lung cancer, metastatic foci, and benign lesions. We could not detect any difference between operation time; however, we found 2 trends showing that drainage duration and length of hospitalization are shorter for following RVATS than for following VATS. Mortality also is lower in patients undergoing RVATS.
conclusionsTherefore, we conclude that RVATS is a suitable minimal-invasive procedure for lung resection and suitable alternative to VATS. RVATS is as time-efficient as VATS and shows a trend to reduced hospital stay and drainage duration. More and better studies are required to provide reliable, unbiased evidence regarding the relative benefits of both methods.
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.