ArticleYonago acta medica2017
Initial Results of Robotic Surgery for Primary Lung Cancer: Feasibility, Safety and Learning Curve.
Article in Yonago acta medica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted and conventional lung segmentectomy: a single-center retrospective comparative study.Fukushima journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Short-term outcomes of multi-arm uniportal robotic thoracic surgery versus uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for non-small cell lung cancer.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Exploring and analyzing learning curves in robotic-assisted thoracoscopic anatomical lung resections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.JTCVS open · 2025Article
- A comparative study of robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery and conventional approaches for short-term outcomes of anatomical segmentectomy.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2024Article
- Inflammatory cytokines in robot-assisted thoracic surgery versus video-assisted thoracic surgery.Journal of thoracic disease · 2022Article
- Transforming Surgical Education through a Resident Robotic Curriculum.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2021Article
- Comparison between robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for mediastinal and hilar lymph node dissection in lung cancer surgery.Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2021Article
- Robotic open-thoracotomy-view approach using vertical port placement and confronting monitor setting.Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2021Article
- Comparison of medium-term survival outcomes between robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in treating primary lung cancer.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2020Article
- Outcomes of major complications after robotic anatomic pulmonary resection.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAt the end of 2016, robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) was still not covered by Japanese national health insurance. Therefore, few institutions in Japan perform RATS and even fewer have reported procedures as they occurred earlier. So, we decided to focus on the initial results of RATS for primary lung cancer.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 44 patients who underwent RATS for primary lung cancer from January 2011 to August 2016. After mastering the initial procedure, we introduced a completely portal robotic pulmonary resection procedure using a carbon dioxide insufflation system. Cases were divided into 2 groups: the early period (20 cases) and the later period (24 cases).
resultsThere was no case of conversion to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery or thoracotomy. In the 44 cases of primary lung cancer, median operating time was 239.5 min, console time was 179 min, blood loss was 10 mL, drainage period was 2 days, morbidity of Grade 2 or more (Clavien-Dindo classification) was 18.2%, morbidity of Grade 3 or more was only 4.6%, and there was no 30-day mortality. Median operating and console times were significantly shorter in the later period (215 min and 159.5 min, respectively) than in the initial period (300.5 min and 228 min, respectively). Median blood loss was significantly lower in the later period (5 mL) than in the initial period (50 mL). Five-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 100% and 88.9%, respectively.
conclusionRATS for primary lung cancer is feasible and safe, has a faster learning curve, and provides satisfactory. Studies with longer follow-ups and larger numbers of cases are necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28959126PMC5611470W2966828932What 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.