ReviewJournal of visualized surgery2017
Robotic lobectomies: when and why?
Review in Journal of visualized surgery, 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic enucleation for esophageal leiomyoma: A propensity-weighted retrospective cohort study.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Complex Thoracic Resections in the Minimally Invasive Era: Is Open Surgery Becoming a Lost Skill?Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Robot-Assisted Thoracic Surgery in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.Journal of chest surgery · 2021Article
- Quality assessment of robot assisted thoracic surgical resection of non-small cell lung cancer: nodal upstaging and mediastinal recurrence.Journal of thoracic disease · 2021Article
- Anesthesia for robotic thoracic surgery.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2019Article
- Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy: transitions in practice.Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Article
- [Advances in Surgical Approach and Resection of Non-small Cell Lung Cancer].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2018Review
- RATS: a word is enough to the wise.Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Article
- Treatment of pulmonary nodule: from VATS to RATS.Journal of visualized surgery · 2018Article
- From "open" to robotic assisted thoracic surgery: why RATS and not VATS?Journal of visualized surgery · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the last decade, an abundance of papers has supported minimally invasive pulmonary resections (MIPR) vs. traditional open approach. Both video assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) and robotic thoracic surgery have shown better perioperative outcomes and equivalent oncologic results compared with thoracotomy, confirming the effectiveness of the MIPR. Despite the profound changes and improvements that have taken place throughout the years and the increasing use of robotic system worldwide, the controversy about the application of robotic surgery for lung resections is still open. Some authors wonder about the advantages of using a more expensive and more complex platform for thoracic surgery instead of the more established VATS technique. Robotic thoracic surgery represents, although the cumulative experience worldwide is still limited and evolving, a significant evolution over VATS, nonetheless several authors criticize the longer operative time and the high costs of robotic procedures. The aim of this paper is to answer two relevant questions: why and when the application of robotic technology in thoracic surgery is appropriate?
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.