Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32767154›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2020

Use of Robotics in Surgical Treatment of Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

Lawek Berzenji, Krishan Yogeswaran, Paul Van Schil, Patrick Lauwers, Jeroen M H Hendriks

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Robotic-assisted bronchoscopy in the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions.Chinese medical journal pulmonary and critical care medicine · 2023
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lawek BerzenjiDepartment of Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital of Antwerp, Antwerp University, Level 2, Route 146, Wilrijkstraat 10, B-2650, Edegem (Antwerp), Belgium.
Krishan YogeswaranDepartment of Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital of Antwerp, Antwerp University, Level 2, Route 146, Wilrijkstraat 10, B-2650, Edegem (Antwerp), Belgium.
Paul Van SchilDepartment of Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital of Antwerp, Antwerp University, Level 2, Route 146, Wilrijkstraat 10, B-2650, Edegem (Antwerp), Belgium.
Patrick LauwersDepartment of Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital of Antwerp, Antwerp University, Level 2, Route 146, Wilrijkstraat 10, B-2650, Edegem (Antwerp), Belgium.
Jeroen M H HendriksDepartment of Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital of Antwerp, Antwerp University, Level 2, Route 146, Wilrijkstraat 10, B-2650, Edegem (Antwerp), Belgium. jeroen.hendriks@uza.be.ORCID 0000-0001-9145-3643
Antwerp University Hospital · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

opinion statementRobotic-assisted videothoracoscopic surgery (R-VATS) has become increasingly popular and widely used since its introduction and is nowadays considered a standard treatment approach in many centres for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. R-VATS was initially developed to overcome the drawbacks of VATS by offering surgeons more flexibility and three-dimensional optics during thoracoscopic surgery. The effectiveness of R-VATS lobectomy regarding oncological outcomes, morbidity, mortality, and postoperative quality of life (QoL) has been shown in an increasing number of studies. More recently, these results have also been corroborated for sublobar resections, more specifically for segmentectomy. However, no well-powered, multicentre randomized trials have been performed to demonstrate the superiority of R-VATS compared with open surgery or conventional types of VATS (total VATS, uniportal VATS, etc.). The majority of the evidence currently available is based on non-randomized studies, and many studies report conflicting results when comparing R-VATS and conventional VATS. Moreover, there is a lack of data regarding the cost and the cost-efficiency of robotic surgery compared with VATS and open surgery. Current evidence suggests that R-VATS costs are higher than VATS and that a deficit can only be prevented when up to 150-300 thoracic surgery procedures are performed annually. Finally, robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery showed better ergonomics and reduced musculoskeletal disorders compared with non-robotic laparoscopic surgery.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungHumansLung NeoplasmsPneumonectomyQuality of LifeRobotic Surgical ProceduresThoracic Surgery, Video-Assistedda VinciLobectomyMinimally invasive surgeryNon-small cell lung cancerRobotic-assisted videothoracoscopic surgery (R-VATS)Segmentectomy

Identifiers

PMID32767154
OpenAlexW3047878793

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.