ArticleJTCVS open2022
Trends of utilization and perioperative outcomes of robotic and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in patients with lung cancer undergoing minimally invasive resection in the United States.
Article in JTCVS open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Perioperative safety and efficacy of minimally invasive vs. open thymectomy for large thymomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Open thoracotomy versus VATS versus RATS for segmentectomy: a systematic review & Bayesian network meta-analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Textbook outcome after minimally invasive pulmonary resection for clinical stage I lung cancer: A retrospective cohort study.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Article
- Unexpected doornail hilar lymph nodes during robot-assisted pulmonary resection: intraoperative challenges and management strategies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Racial and Ethnic Differences in 60-Day Hospital Readmissions for Patients with Breast, Colorectal, Lung, and Prostate Cancer.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- The uptake of segmentectomy for non-small cell lung cancer in adopters of robotic surgery.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- The effects of thoracic surgery techniques on postoperative pain and comparison of intercostal interventions.Medicine · 2026Observational
- Safe transition to robotics: How an established program on vats shapes postoperative outcomes in lung resection.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Risk factors and survival associated with lung cancer recurrence after curative-intent surgery: beyond TNM pathological staging.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Article
- Evolution of Uniportal Robotic-Assisted Thoracic Surgery: A Retrospective Study on the Original and Modified Techniques for Lung Anatomic Resections.Thoracic cancer · 2025Article
- One-stage versus two-stage thoracoscopic surgery for synchronous bilateral pulmonary nodules: a propensity score-matched analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Postoperative Lung Function after Robotic- versus Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Lobectomy for Lung Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia · 2025Article
- A Comparative Effectiveness Study of Two Narrow-Profile Staplers Used in Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Lobectomy.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Effective division of the intersegmental plane using a robotic stapler in robotic pulmonary segmentectomy.Surgery today · 2024Article
- Review
- Anatomical partial lobectomy: implications in the light of JCOG0802/WJOG4607L and CALGB140503 (Alliance) trials.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate utilization and perioperative outcomes of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) or robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) for lung cancer in the United States using a nationally representative database. Methods: Hospital admissions for lobectomy or sublobar resection (segmentectomy or wedge resection) using VATS or RATS in patients with nonmetastatic lung cancer from October 2015 through December 2018 in the National Inpatient Sample were studied. Patient and hospital characteristics, perioperative complications and mortality, length of stay (LOS), and total hospital cost were compared. Logistic regression was used to assess whether the surgical approach was independently associated with adverse outcomes. Results: There were 83,105 patients who had VATS (n = 65,375) or RATS (n = 17,710) for lobectomy (72.7% VATS) or sublobar resection (84.2% VATS). Utilization of RATS for lobectomy and sublobar resection increased from 19.2% to 34% and 7.3% to 22%, respectively. Mortality, LOS, and conversion rates were comparable. The cost was higher for RATS ( Conclusions: The utilization of robotic-assisted lung resection for cancer has increased in the United States between 2015 and 2018 for sublobar resection and lobectomy. In adjusted regression analysis, compared with VATS, patients who underwent RATS had similar complication rates and LOS. The robotic approach was associated with increased total hospital cost. LOS and thoracic complication rates trended down after RATS lobectomy.
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.