ArticleTranslational cancer research2021
Robotic and video-assisted lobectomy/segmentectomy for non-small cell lung cancer have similar perioperative outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robot-assisted versus video-assisted surgery for early functional recovery in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-based matching studies.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
- Pooled it
- Safe transition to robotics: How an established program on vats shapes postoperative outcomes in lung resection.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Benchmarking Large Language Models Using a Best Evidence Topic Report in a Patient With Early Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 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
- Advances in the Basic Sciences in Thoracic Oncology in the Last 20 Years and Their Translational Impact.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2026Review
- Minimally invasive segmentectomy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a comparative analysis of robotic and thoracoscopic approaches.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Refining Surgical Standards: The Role of Robotic-Assisted Segmentectomy in Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.Cancers · 2025Review
- A Precision Surgery Framework for Lung Resection: Robotic, Video-Assisted, and Open Segmentectomy.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- 10-Year Long-Term Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Segmentectomy for Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Outcomes of RATS in comparison to VATS and open lung resections for malignancy in propensity matched high-risk patients.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Robotic-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery Versus Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: Which Is the Preferred Approach for Early-Stage NSCLC?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Adoption of the Robotic Platform across Thoracic Surgeries.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Review
- Robotic lung resection: a narrative review of the current role on primary lung cancer treatment.Journal of thoracic disease · 2022Review
- Editorial on "robotic versus thoracoscopic combined anatomic subsegmentectomy for early stage lung cancer: early results of a cohort study".Journal of thoracic disease · 2022Article
- Editorial: Real-world surgical treatment of thoracic cancer in the era of precision medicine.Frontiers in surgery · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAt present, the clinical conclusion that robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) and video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS), which is better for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not clear. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes between RATS and VATS for NSCLC.
methodsThe Population, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes, and Study design (PICOS) framework was employed to develop the search strategy, and the findings was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We searched EMbase, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wan Fang Data to collect clinical studies about RATS
resultsA total of 18 studies involving 60,349 patients were included. Among them, 8,726 cases were in the RATS group, and 51,623 were in the VATS group. The results of meta-analysis showed that the operation time of RATS group was longer than that of VATS group (SMD=0.532, 95% CI: 0.391-0.674, P=0.000). And the further meta-analysis suggested that the incidence of postoperative complications was lower in patients who underwent RATS after 2015 (OR=0.848, 95% CI: 0.748-0.962, P=0.010). Meanwhile, there was no significant difference between both groups in postoperative hospitalization time (SMD=0.003, 95% CI: -0.104-0.110, P=0.957). In addition, more lymph nodes were retrieved in RATS group than VATS (SMD=0.308, 95% CI: 0.131-0.486, P=0.001). However, the conversion rate, retrieved lymph node station, days to tube removal and in-hospital mortality rate have no significant differences between both groups. DISCUSSION: The current meta-analysis indicates that the perioperative outcomes of RATS and VATS for NSCLC are equivalence. Due to the limited quantity and quality of included studies, the above conclusions still need to be verified by more high-quality studies.
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.