ArticleJournal of chest surgery2022
Early Outcomes of Robotic Versus Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Anatomical Resection for Lung Cancer.
Article in Journal of chest surgery, 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- How Does a Robotic Lung Resection Programme Evolve? Learning Curve and Conversion Analysis of the Versius CMR Surgical System.Cancers · 2026Article
- Evaluation of lymph nodes in various surgical approaches for clinical N0 lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Beyond the platform: why surgical quality and surgeon proficiency outweigh the RATS vs. VATS debate in early-stage lung cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- National adoption of robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for oncologic lung resections.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Establishment of Thoracic Surgical Difficulty Assessment Scale based on Delphi method.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe compared the safety and effectiveness of robotic anatomical resection and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS).
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted of the records of 4,283 patients, in whom an attempt was made to perform minimally invasive anatomical resection for lung cancer at Seoul National University Hospital from January 2011 to July 2020. Of these patients, 138 underwent robotic surgery and 4,145 underwent VATS. Perioperative outcomes were compared after propensity score matching including age, sex, height, weight, pulmonary function, smoking status, performance status, comorbidities, type of resection, combined bronchoplasty/angioplasty, tumor size, clinical T/N category, histology, and neoadjuvant treatment.
resultsIn total, 137 well-balanced pairs were obtained. There were no cases of 30-day mortality in the entire cohort. Conversion to thoracotomy was required more frequently in the VATS group (VATS 6.6% vs. robotic 0.7%, p=0.008). The complete resection rate (VATS 97.8% vs. robotic 98.5%, p=1.000) and postoperative complication rate (VATS 17.5% vs. robotic 19.0%, p=0.874) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The robotic group showed a slightly shorter hospital stay (VATS 5.8±3.9 days vs. robotic 5.0±3.6 days, p=0.052). N2 nodal upstaging (cN0/pN2) was more common in the robotic group than the VATS group, but without statistical significance (VATS 4% vs. robotic 12%, p=0.077).
conclusionRobotic anatomical resection in lung cancer showed comparable early outcomes when compared to VATS. In particular, robotic resection presented a lower conversion-to-thoracotomy rate. Furthermore, a robotic approach might improve lymph node harvesting in the N2 station.
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.