ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2022
Complications of Robotic Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery Compared to Open Thoracotomy for Resectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.
Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally invasive surgery versus thoracotomy for locally advanced lung cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- Short term outcomes of robotic surgery after neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced NSCLC: a comparison with the open approach.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Review
- Chest wall resections for sulcus superior tumors.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Review
- Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Patients Undergoing Elective Thoracotomy Versus Thoracoscopic Surgeries.Cureus · 2023Article
- Tailored Practical Simulation Training in Robotic Surgery: A New Educational Technology.Annals of thoracic surgery short reports · 2023Article
- Personalized Medicine in Thoracic Surgery: The Role and Future of Robotic-Assisted Techniques.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Review
- The Effect of Gefitinib on Treatment Necessity and Prognosis of NSCLC Patients with Early EGFR Mutations.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Forward We Go!JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Conventional open thoracotomy has been the accepted surgical treatment for resectable non-small cell lung cancer. However, newer, minimally invasive approaches, such as robotic surgery, have demonstrated similar safety and efficacy with potentially superior peri-operative outcomes. The present study aimed to quantitatively assess these outcomes through a meta-analysis. (2) Methods: A systematic review was performed using electronic databases to identify all of the relevant studies that compared robotic surgery with open thoracotomy for non-small cell lung cancer. Pooled data on the peri-operative outcomes were then meta-analyzed. (3) Results: Twenty-two studies involving 12,061 patients who underwent robotic lung resection and 92,411 patients who underwent open thoracotomy were included for analysis. Mortality rates and length of hospital stay were significantly lower in patients who underwent robotic resection. Compared to open thoracotomy, robotic surgery was also associated with significantly lower rates of overall complications, including atrial arrhythmia, post-operative blood transfusions, pneumonia and atelectasis. However, the operative times were significantly longer with robotic lung resection. (4) Conclusions: The present meta-analysis demonstrated superior post-operative morbidity and mortality outcomes with robotic lung resection compared to open thoracotomy for non-small cell 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.