ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2023
Prolonged air leak after robotic lung resection: a narrative review.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
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
Background and Objective: Prolonged air leak (PAL) following lung resection is related to an increase in morbidity and both direct and indirect costs. In recent years, robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) has proved to be a safe technique with comparable perioperative outcomes of video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS), optimal oncological results, and potential advantages in case of sublobar resection. We here focus on the incidence and clinical impact of PAL in the field of robotic surgery and discuss the therapeutic strategies currently available. Methods: We conducted a search on PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus database from inception until May 27 Key Content and Findings: The implementation of robotic surgery led to a significant reduction in PAL occurrence after pulmonary resection compared to open thoracotomy, while there is still no clear advantage with respect to VATS. However, the enhanced dexterity and improved visualization of the robot seem to particularly valuable in case of sublobar lung resection, especially complex ones. Accurate selection of patients based on the presence of risk factors allows the implementation of intraoperative measures in order to reduce the occurrence of PAL. Conclusions: Robotic lung resection is a safe technique, advantageous compared to traditional open thoracotomy in terms of PAL occurrence reduction and it is a valid alternative to manual VATS. Moreover, with the extension of indications for sublobar resection in the treatment of early stage lung cancer, RATS may prove to be the technique of choice thanks to its intrinsic advantages.
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.