ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2020
Use of Robotics in Surgical Treatment of Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perioperative outcomes comparison of robotic and video-assisted thoracoscopic thymectomy for thymic epithelial tumor: a single-center experience.Updates in surgery · 2024Article
- Robotic-assisted bronchoscopy in the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions.Chinese medical journal pulmonary and critical care medicine · 2023Review
- Robot-assisted thoracic surgery for lung cancer patients with incomplete fissure.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Medical Data Analysis of CYP1B1 Gene Polymorphism and Clinical Prognosis of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Lung Cancer.BioMed research international · 2022Article
- Robotic and video-assisted lobectomy/segmentectomy for non-small cell lung cancer have similar perioperative outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational cancer research · 2021Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.