ReviewFrontiers in oncology2022
Updated Evaluation of Robotic- and Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Lobectomy or Segmentectomy for Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 5 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
50 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perioperative outcomes and safety of Uniportal Robotic-Assisted Thoracic Surgery (U-RATS) for anatomic lung resection: 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
- State of the art of robotic lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic-style evidence synthesis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled 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
- Postoperative esophageal achalasia after robotic left lower lobectomy for lung cancer: a case report.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery cases · 2026Article
- Robotic Bronchial Restapling After Inadvertent Stapling of an Endobronchial Suction Tube: Technical Note and a Prestapling Time-Out.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Impact of modern minimally invasive approaches on pulmonary resection outcomes: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- How Does a Robotic Lung Resection Programme Evolve? Learning Curve and Conversion Analysis of the Versius CMR Surgical System.Cancers · 2026Article
- Robotic-assisted pulmonary resection with a periareolar assistant port: learning curve and propensity-matched comparison with the conventional-portal approach.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Analgesia in Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery: A Comparison Between Robotic Surgery and Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- Postoperative Ischemic Bronchitis Progressing to Bronchopleural Fistula After Robotic Lobectomy: A First Report.Respirology case reports · 2026Article
- Complex lung segmentectomy: comparative perioperative outcomes of robotic and video-assisted approaches.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026Article
- The Revolution in Surgery That Saves Millions of Lives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Does Robotic Segmentectomy Improve Long-Term Outcomes in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer?European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2026Article
- Long-Term Oncological Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Updated Review.Cancers · 2026Review
- Uniportal robotic-assisted left upper lobectomy with pulmonary artery reconstruction for a central lung cancer: a step-by-step surgical technique.Journal of visualized surgery · 2026Article
- Erector spinae plane block improves postoperative analgesia and pulmonary function recovery after thoracoscopic lobectomy: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical efficacy and safety of video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy versus wedge resection in elderly patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.American journal of cancer research · 2026Article
- Minimally invasive segmentectomy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a comparative analysis of robotic and thoracoscopic approaches.BMC surgery · 2025Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) and video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) are the two principal minimally invasive surgical approaches for patients with lung cancer. This study aimed at comparing the long-term and short-term outcomes of RATS and VATS for lung cancer. Methods: A comprehensive search for studies that compared RATS versus VATS for lung cancer published until November 31, 2021, was conducted. Data on perioperative outcomes and oncologic outcomes were subjected to meta-analysis. PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before November 2021. Results: Twenty-six studies comparing 45,733 patients (14,271 and 31,462 patients who underwent RATS and VATS, respectively) were included. The present meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences in operative time, any complications, tumor size, chest drain duration, R0 resection rate, lymph station, 5-year overall survival, and recurrence rate. However, compared with the VATS group, the RATS group had less blood loss, a lower conversion rate to open, a shorter length of hospital stay, more lymph node dissection, and better 5-year disease-free survival. Conclusions: RATS is a safe and feasible alternative to VATS for patients with lung cancer.
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.