ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2022
A retrospective comparative cohort study on the efficacy and safety of bi-port robotic-assisted lobectomy and multi-port robotic-assisted lobectomy.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The evolution of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery: current platforms, emerging technologies, and future perspectives - a narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Advancing minimally invasive thoracic surgery: comparative insights into uniportal and multiportal robotic approaches for non-small cell lung cancer.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026Article
- Transitioning from multiport to uniport robot-assisted thoracic surgery: a propensity score-weighted evaluation of safety and feasibility.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparison of uniportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgery pulmonary anatomic resections with multiport robotic-assisted thoracic surgery: a multicenter study of the European experience.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The pursuit of less surgical incisions brings better postoperative experience of patients and earns extensive popularity recently. As the update to the da Vinci robotic surgical system has reduced the size of the robotic arm, a new surgical method with fewer ports has become feasible. We performed 20 cases of robotic surgery with only 2 ports and compared the efficacy and safety between bi-port robotic-assisted lobectomy and multi-port robotic-assisted lobectomy. Methods: To compare the efficacy and safety of the different surgery strategies, we retrospectively reviewed 20 cases of bi-port robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) and 40 cases of multi-port RATS which were performed at the Shanghai Chest Hospital Between February 2021 and May 2021. The baseline characteristics and their perioperative data were collected and analyzed. Chest tube drainage, chest tube removal time, lymphadenectomy outcomes, operation duration were collected to compare the efficacy of the two groups and blood loss, perioperative complications were recorded to value the safety. Results: A total of 60 surgeries in the 2 groups were successfully completed. The baseline characteristics in terms of sex, age, health statues were comparable (P≥0.05). The maximum diameter of the tumor in the bi-port surgery group was 0.5-3.6 cm (2.0±1.0) Conclusions: Compared to multi-port RATS, Bi-port robotic-assisted lobectomy was safe and showed promising efficacy in patients with early staged operable 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.