ArticleFrontiers in surgery2023
A real-world experience of transition to robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) for lung resections.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review of Outcomes Between Robotic and Thoracoscopic Thoracic Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Implementation of a robotic-assisted thoracic surgery program for anatomical lung resections, a single surgeon's experience.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We report our experience of transition to robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) for lung resections with the da Vinci Xi surgical system, exposing short-term results. Materials and methods: This is a single-center, retrospective analysis of RATS lung resections performed between April 2021 and September 2022 during our new robotic program. The surgical approach evolved over time, starting from a four-arm approach with four incisions. Alternative RATS approaches were subsequently evaluated, such as uniportal and biportal. Results: During a 17-month period, 29 lung resections were performed. Of them, 16 were lobectomies, 7 were segmentectomies, and 6 were wedge resections. The most common indication for anatomical lung resection was non-small cell lung cancer. A uniportal approach was used for two simple segmentectomies and a biportal RATS was performed in five lobectomies and two segmentectomies. A mean number of 8.1 lymph nodes and a mean of 2.6 N2 and 1.9 N1 stations were resected during surgery, and no nodal upstaging was observed. Negative resection margins were 100%. There were two (7%) conversions, one to open surgery and one to video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS). Eight (28%) patients experienced complications with no 30-day mortality. Discussion: High-ergonomic and high-quality views were immediately observed. After some procedures, we abandoned uniportal RATS because of the possibility of arm collisions and the necessity of a VATS-skilled surgeon at the operating table. Conclusion: RATS for lung resections was safe and effective, and from the surgeon's standpoint, several practical advantages over VATS were observed. Further analysis on outcomes will help better understand the value of this technology.
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.