ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Robotic and Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery for Early-Stage Lung Cancer: Comparison of Long-Term Pain at a Single Centre.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 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
- Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery for resectable lung cancer: efficacy, safety and surgical approaches - an umbrella review of meta-analyses.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- Postoperative analgesia following robot-assisted thoracic surgery for mediastinal disease: retrospective comparative study of general anesthesia alone, combined with epidural analgesia, and with ultrasound-guided thoracic paraspinal block.Annals of translational medicine · 2023Article
- Frailty, Illness Perception and Lung Functional Exercise Adherence in Lung Cancer Patients After Thoracoscopic Surgery.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
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
backgroundsSince the application of mini-invasive surgery to pulmonary lobectomy, various studies confirmed the feasibility and the safety of the technique, with equivalent oncological standards. However, there are no studies that compare long-term postoperative pain in minimally invasive thoracic surgery.
methodsBetween 1 January 2019 and 28 February 2020, we analysed pain scores at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after the operation, where 50 patients underwent a VATS lobectomy and 50 underwent a RATS lobectomy. Pain scores are obtained through a telephone questionnaire, according to a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS).
resultsThe medias of the NRS scores, at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after the operation were similar in both groups. Group I was composed of 50 patients who underwent a video-assisted lobectomy, while Group II was composed of 50 patients who underwent a robotic-assisted lobectomy. Two weeks after surgery Group I had a NRS value of 2.96 and in Group II it was 2.86; three months after in Group I the value was 2.16 and in Group II it was 2.06; six months after Group I 's value was 1.62 and Group II's was 1.56; one year after in Group I the value was 1.30 and in the Group II was 1.24. For each time interval, no statistically significant differences were found (
conclusionsIn our analysis, RATS and VATS did not have significant differences in post-operative and long-term pain.
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.