ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2023
Suggested robotic-assisted thoracic surgery training curriculum.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The evolution of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery: current platforms, emerging technologies, and future perspectives - a narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Comparative analysis of short-term outcomes, inflammatory markers, and complications in robotic-assistedJournal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Reshaping the robotic learning curve in anatomic lung resection: the role of prior video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery experience in a multi-surgeon single-center series.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Is RATS Superior to VATS in Thoracic Autonomic Nervous System Surgery?Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic-assisted surgery, a technological advancement in the field of surgery, has become increasingly popular among surgeons of many specialties over time. Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) is comparable to video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) in terms of patient care outcomes; however, the perception of increased operative time and a lack of cost-effectiveness have led to controversy regarding its alleged benefits. Nevertheless, robotic surgery is one of the preferred options for minimally invasive surgery by some thoracic surgeon over VATS, due to its ability to provide 3-D vision, precise wrist movements, enhanced magnification, and instrument stability and articulation. Notably, trainees in the field of thoracic surgery experience difficulty gaining knowledge and learning skills associated with RATS due to its complexity, limited access to robotic instruments, the lack of a standardized curriculum for trainees, and lack of mentorship or proctorship, thus leading to a steeper learning curve compared to laparoscopic or VATS procedures that are cost-friendly, easy to learn, and feasible to practice. Nevertheless, focusing on RATS training for thoracic surgeons will keep them familiar with robotic techniques, including the pre-operative setup and intra-operative process, which will ultimately decrease operative times. In this paper, we will review the literature, express and discuss the most viable training curriculum from authors' point of view to help achieve this goal.
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.