ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Short-Term Surgical Outcomes for Lobectomy Between Robot-Assisted Thoracic Surgery and Uniportal Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery.
Article 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 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Minimally invasive surgery vs. open thoracotomy for non-small-cell lung cancer with N2 disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Erector spinae plane block improves postoperative analgesia and pulmonary function recovery after thoracoscopic lobectomy: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Quality of Lymph Node Dissection in Lung Cancer Surgery: A Comparative Analysis of Robotic-Assisted Versus Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery Using Novel Pathological Criteria.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2025Article
- Robotic-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery Versus Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: Which Is the Preferred Approach for Early-Stage NSCLC?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Comparison of transfusion rates between robotic- and video-assisted lobectomy: a propensity score matching analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Efficacy of Using Maryland Forceps Versus Electrocoagulation Hooks in RATS Lung Cancer Surgery: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the short-term outcomes of uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (UVATS) and Da Vinci robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) in lobectomy and lymph node (LN) dissection. Methods: The two groups of patients with primary non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; RATS group, UVATS group) were matched by the propensity score to compare LN dissection and recent clinical outcomes. The results were analyzed by univariate analysis. From November 2020 to November 2021, 412 NSCLC patients (54 RATS and 358 UVATS) from a single institution of the Provincial Hospital affiliated with Shandong First Medical University were included in the analysis. Age, sex, lung lobe, surgical resection scope, solid nodules, and core tumor ratios were matched according to different surgical methods. Results: From November 2020 to November 2021, 412 patients with NSCLC (54 RATS, 358 UVATS) from the Provincial Hospital affiliated with Shandong First Medical University were included in the analysis. According to our matching results, LN dissection was more thorough in the RATS group. Conclusion: RATS has potential advantages over UVATS in radical lung cancer surgery.
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.