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.
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.
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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perioperative outcomes and safety of Uniportal Robotic-Assisted Thoracic Surgery (U-RATS) for anatomic lung resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery for resectable lung cancer: efficacy, safety and surgical approaches - an umbrella review of meta-analyses.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- A modified Cerfolio technique for robotic pulmonary resection: a retrospective comparison with the conventional approach.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative efficacy of uniportal and multiportal robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Biological surgical stress after minimally invasive lung resection for non-small cell lung cancer: comparing robotic and thoracoscopic surgical platforms.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- From the Thoracoscope to the Robot: The Evolving Landscape of Minimally Invasive Pulmonary Surgery.Cancers · 2026Review
- The evolution of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery: current platforms, emerging technologies, and future perspectives - a narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Initial clinical outcomes of uniportal robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Uniportal Robotic-Assisted Versus Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery for Anatomical Lung Resection in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Comparative Single-Center Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Advancing minimally invasive thoracic surgery: comparative insights into uniportal and multiportal robotic approaches for non-small cell lung cancer.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026Article
- Uniportal robotic‑assisted thoracic surgery for anatomical lung resections: initial experience and technical feasibility.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2026Article
- Initial single-center experience with robot-assisted single-port major pulmonary resection: a retrospective study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- The unified front: a multidisciplinary approach in the Era of uniportal thoracic surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- The future of lung cancer surgery lies between innovations: synergy across the perioperative ERATS pathway.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Impact on Respiratory Mechanics of Uniportal-Biportal Robotic Lung Resection Without Capnothorax Versus Multiportal Approach With Capnothorax: A Prospective Cohort Observational Study.Anesthesiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Transitioning from multiport to uniport robot-assisted thoracic surgery: a propensity score-weighted evaluation of safety and feasibility.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Non-assistant help operation in dual-portal RATS (neoDRATS): a surgical technique.Journal of visualized surgery · 2026Article
- Comparison of the short-term outcomes and the incidence of post-thoracotomy pain syndrome between dual-portal and multi-portal robotic-assisted thoracic surgery.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2025Article
- Uniportal versus multiportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgery pulmonary resections: a propensity score-matched analysis.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Evolution of Uniportal Robotic-Assisted Thoracic Surgery: A Retrospective Study on the Original and Modified Techniques for Lung Anatomic Resections.Thoracic cancer · 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
18 authors at 12 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.