ArticleTurk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi2020
Robot-assisted lobectomy versus completely portal robotic lobectomy: What is the difference?
Article in Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Total-port vs. utility-incision robotic pulmonary segmentectomy: a propensity score-based analysis of 418 patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic portal resection for mediastinal tumours: a prospective observational study.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Observational
- Robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery improves perioperative outcomes in overweight and obese patients with non-small-cell lung cancer undergoing lobectomy: A propensity score matching analysis.Thoracic cancer · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to compare robot-assisted lobectomy versus completely portal robotic lobectomy.
methodsBetween January 2014 and December 2019, a total of 41 patients (10 males, 31 females; median age 62 years; range, 50 to 68 years) underwent robotic anatomical pulmonary resection in our institution were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were consecutively divided into two groups: the first 20 (48.8%) patients underwent pulmonary resection by robot-assisted lobectomy technique, while the next 21 (51.2%) patients underwent pulmonary resection by completely portal robotic lobectomy with four arms. Data including age, sex, diagnosis, surgery type and duration, rate of conversion to open surgery, and length of stay of the patients were recorded. The operation time, docking time, console time, and closure duration for each patient were also noted.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference in age, sex, comorbidities, complications, length of hospital stay, adequate lymph node staging, or tumor size and side between the two groups (p>0.05). However, the mean console and operation times were statistically significantly shorter in the patients receiving completely portal robotic lobectomy with four arms (p=0.001).
conclusionThe advantage of completely portal robotic lobectomy with four arms is relative, although it significantly shortens the operation time. Based on our experiences, this technique may be preferred in case of inadequate lung deflation, as carbon dioxide insufflation allows sufficient workspace for robotic lung resection.
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.