Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37035654›Full record

ArticleAnnals of cardiothoracic surgery2023

Comparison of uniportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgery pulmonary anatomic resections with multiport robotic-assisted thoracic surgery: a multicenter study of the European experience.

Veronica Manolache, Natalia Motas, Mugurel Liviu Bosinceanu, Mercedes de la Torre, Javier Gallego-Poveda, Joel Dunning, Mahmoud Ismail, Akif Turna, Marina Paradela, Georges Decker and 8 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of cardiothoracic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Uniportal robotic‑assisted thoracic surgery for anatomical lung resections: initial experience and technical feasibility.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 12 institutions in 7 countries.

Veronica ManolacheDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Memorial Oncology Hospital, Bucharest, Romania.
Natalia MotasDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Memorial Oncology Hospital, Bucharest, Romania.
Mugurel Liviu BosinceanuDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Memorial Oncology Hospital, Bucharest, Romania.
Mercedes de la TorreDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Coruña University Hospital, A Coruña, Spain.
Javier Gallego-PovedaDepartment of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Lusiadas Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal.
Joel DunningDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
Mahmoud IsmailDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Klinikum Ernst von Bergmann Potsdam, Academic Hospital of the Charité-Universitätsmedizin Humboldt University Berlin, Potsdam, Germany.
Akif TurnaDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Cerrahpasa Medical School, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, İstanbul, Turkey.
Marina ParadelaDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Coruña University Hospital, A Coruña, Spain.
Georges DeckerDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Hôpitaux Robert Schuman-ZithaKlinik, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
Ricard RamosThoracic Surgery Service, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, Barcelona, Spain.
Johanes BodnerDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Klinikum Bogenhausen, Englschalkinger Strasse 77, Munchen, Germany.
Dionisio Espinosa JimenezDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Hospital Puerta del Mar, Cádiz, Spain.
Patrick ZardoDepartment of Cardiothoracic, Transplantation and Vascular Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Alejandro Garcia-PerezDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Coruña University Hospital, A Coruña, Spain.
Anna Ureña LluverasThoracic Surgery Service, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, Barcelona, Spain.
Daniel PantileDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Central Military Emergency University Hospital Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania.
Diego Gonzalez-RivasDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Memorial Oncology Hospital, Bucharest, Romania.
Universidade da Coruña · ESBellvitge University Hospital · ESClinical Emergency Hospital Bucharest · ROLusíada University of Lisbon · PTCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEHospital Universitario Puerta del Mar · ESInstitutul Oncologic Bucuresti · ROIstanbul University-Cerrahpaşa · TRJames Cook University Hospital · GBLuxembourg School of Business · LUMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DEMünchen Klinik Bogenhausen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) has seen increasing interest in the last few years, with most procedures primarily being performed in the conventional multiport manner. Our team has developed a new approach that has the potential to convert surgeons from uniportal video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) or open surgery to robotic-assisted surgery, uniportal-RATS (U-RATS). We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of one single incision, uniportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (U-RATS) against standard multiport RATS (M-RATS) with regards to safety, feasibility, surgical technique, immediate oncological result, postoperative recovery, and 30-day follow-up morbidity and mortality. Methods: We performed a large retrospective multi-institutional review of our prospectively curated database, including 101 consecutive U-RATS procedures performed from September 2021 to October 2022, in the European centers that our main surgeon operates in. We compared these cases to 101 consecutive M-RATS cases done by our colleagues in Barcelona between 2019 to 2022. Results: Both patient groups were similar with respect to demographics, smoking status and tumor size, but were significantly younger in the U-RATS group [M-RATS =69 (range, 39-81) years; U-RATS =63 years (range, 19-82) years; P<0.0001]. Most patients in both operative groups underwent resection of a primary non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [M-RATS 96/101 (95%); U-RATS =60/101 (59%); P<0.0001]. The main type of anatomic resection was lobectomy for the multiport group, and segmentectomy for the U-RATS group. In the M-RATS group, only one anatomical segmentectomy was performed, while the U-RATS group had twenty-four (24%) segmentectomies (P=0.0006). All M-RATS and U-RATS surgical specimens had negative resection margins (R0) and contained an equivalent median number of lymph nodes available for pathologic analysis [M-RATS =11 (range, 5-54); U-RATS =15 (range, 0-41); P=0.87]. Conversion rate to thoracotomy was zero in the U-RATS group and low in M-RATS [M-RATS =2/101 (2%); U-RATS =0/101; P=0.19]. Median operative time was also statistically different [M-RATS =150 (range, 60-300) minutes; U-RATS =136 (range, 30-308) minutes; P=0.0001]. Median length of stay was significantly lower in U-RATS group at four days [M-RATS =5 (range, 2-31) days; U-RATS =4 (range, 1-18) days; P<0.0001]. Rate of complications and 30-day mortality was low in both groups. Conclusions: U-RATS is feasible and safe for anatomic lung resections and comparable to the multiport conventional approach regarding surgical outcomes. Given the similarity of the technique to uniportal VATS, it presents the potential to convert minimally invasive thoracic surgeons to a robotic-assisted approach.

Indexed as

lung cancermultiport robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (M-RATS)robotic lung resectionsUniportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (U-RATS)

Identifiers

PMID37035654
PMCPMC10080339
OpenAlexW4323665243

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.