ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
Perioperative Outcome of Robotic Approach
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02804893 (Prospective, Randomized, Multicentric Study On Videothoracoscopic), which is not on this map. Cited by 63 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Prospective, Randomized, Multicentric Study On Videothoracoscopic (Vats) Vs Robotic Approach For Lobectomy Or Anatomical Segmentectomy In Patients Affected By Early Lung Cancer (ROMAN)
Who cites it
63 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Perioperative outcomes and nodal station assessment after robotic-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic segmentectomy for early-stage NSCLC: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery for resectable lung cancer: efficacy, safety and surgical approaches - an umbrella review of meta-analyses.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery versus video-assisted thoracic surgery for patients undergoing lung resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robot-assisted surgery in thoracic and visceral indications: an updated systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of robot-assisted thoracic surgery versus video-assisted thoracic surgery in the treatment of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Perioperative management and challenges of robotic-assisted surgery: a narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Vietnamese expert consensus on the diagnosis and multidisciplinary management of resectable non-small cell lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Review
- The evolution of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery: current platforms, emerging technologies, and future perspectives - a narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Clinical efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery after neoadjuvant therapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- RoboticJournal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Radicality of mediastinal lymphadenectomy in anatomic lung resection for lung cancer: a comparative analysis of uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic and robotic-assisted thoracoscopic approaches.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Comparative effectiveness of robotic and video assisted thoracic surgery for lung cancer across key outcomes.iScience · 2026Article
- Initial single-center experience with robot-assisted single-port major pulmonary resection: a retrospective study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Robotic Thoracic Surgery: Current Landscape and Future Directions.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2026Review
- Robot-Assisted Thoracic Surgery for Lung Cancer in Juntendo University -Safety and benefit.Juntendo medical journal · 2026Article
- Is Robotic-Assisted Surgery Associated With Receipt of Guideline-Directed Lymph Node Sampling in Wedge Resection for Early-Stage NSCLC?Annals of thoracic surgery short reports · 2025Article
- Outcomes of minimally invasive lung resection with concomitant chest wall resection in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Temporal Trends in Outcomes and Predictors of Length of Stay following Lung Cancer Resection over 10 Years with Enhanced Recovery After Surgery.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Robotic versus video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for pathological stage II-IIIB non-small cell lung cancer: evaluation of perioperative and survival outcomes.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe report the results of the first prospective international randomized control trial to compare the perioperative outcome and surgical radicality of the robotic approach with those of traditional video-assisted surgery in the treatment of early-stage lung cancer.
methodsPatients with clinical stage T1-T2, N0-N1 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned to robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) or video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) resection arms. The primary objective was the incidence of adverse events including complications and conversion to thoracotomy. The secondary objectives included extent of lymph node (LN) dissection and other indicators.
resultsThis trial was closed at 83 cases as the probability of concluding in favor of the robot arm for the primary outcome was null according to the observed trend. In this study, we report the results of the analysis conducted on the patients enrolled until trial suspension. Thirty-nine cases were randomized in the VATS arm and 38 in the robotic arm. Six patients were excluded from analysis. Despite finding no difference between the two arms in perioperative complications, conversions, duration of surgery, or duration of postoperative stay, a significantly greater degree of LN assessment by the robotic technique was observed in regards to the median number of sampled LN stations [6, interquartile range (IQR) 4-6
conclusionsThe results of this trial demonstrated that RATS was not superior to VATS considering the perioperative outcome for early-stage NSCLC, but the robotic approach allowed an improvement of LN dissection. Further studies are suggested to validate the results of this trial. CLINICAL
trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT02804893.
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.