SynthesisTechnology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine2024
Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted and video assisted thoracic surgery for early non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- State of the art of robotic lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic-style evidence synthesis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted vs video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on surgical quality, perioperative, and oncologic outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- The extent of lymph node dissection in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: current controversies, evidence gaps, and future directions in the immunotherapy era-a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Clinical and operational impact of single anesthesia events in the surgical management of early-stage lung cancer: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Robotic vs. bedside staplers in robotic lung resection: a real-world cohort study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Initial experience with the Saroa surgical system for early-stage lung cancer: a comparative study with the da Vinci surgical system.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Initial Surgical Results of Subcostal Single-Port Robotic Lung Resection: A Comparative Analysis With the Multi-Port Robot.World journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Robotic-assisted cardiothoracic surgery: a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of trends, innovations, and future directions.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Review
- Robot-Assisted Lobectomy for Lung Cancer Complicated by Lymphangioleiomyomatosis.Surgical case reports · 2026Article
- Emerging technologies in thoracic surgery: artificial intelligence, robotic-assisted surgery, and telesurgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Comparison of short-term efficacy between robot-assisted and uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for right upper lobectomy in non-small cell lung cancer.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic versus video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for pathological stage II-IIIB non-small cell lung cancer: evaluation of perioperative and survival outcomes.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Lobectomy for primary lung cancer: a comparison of perioperative and postoperative outcomes between robot-assisted thoracic surgery and video-assisted thoracic surgery.Surgery today · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRadical resection of lung cancer and chemotherapy are the main methods for the treatment of early lung cancer, but surgical treatment is still the key and preferred method.
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) and video assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
methodsThe clinical cohort studies on the comparison of the effects of RATS and VATS in the treatment of NSCLC published in Web of Science, PubMed, The National Library of Medicine (NLM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang database from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2022 were searched. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data, such as operation time, intraoperative conversion rate, intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph nodes dissected, and evaluated the quality of the included literature based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RevMan 5.3 software was used for Meat analysis.
resultsA total of 18 articles and 21,802 subjects were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the intraoperative blood loss of RATS was significantly less than that of VAS, and the difference was statistically significant [MD =-38.43 (95% CI: -57.71, -19.15, P< 0.001)]. Compared with VATS, the number of lymph nodes dissected in RATS was significantly higher [MD = 2.61 (95% CI: 0.47, 4.76, P= 0.02)]. The rate of conversion to thoracotomy in RATS was lower, and the difference was statistically significant [OR = 0.59 (95% CI: 0.50, 0.70, P< 0.001)]. There was no significant difference between RATS and VATS in operation time [MD =-9.34 (95% CI: -28.72, 10.04, P= 0.34)], postoperative thoracic drainage time [MD =-0.08 (95% CI: -0.42, 0.26, P= 0.64)], postoperative hospital stay [MD =-0.05 (95% CI: -0.19, 0.08, P= 0.42)], postoperative mortality [OR = 0.88 (95% CI: 0.56, 1.36, P= 0.56)] and postoperative complications [OR = 1.03 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.13, P= 0.57)].
conclusionCompared with VATS, the number of lymph nodes dissected in RATS was significantly more, and the removal of lesions and lymph nodes was more thorough and accurate. More flexible and precise operation avoids the injury of important blood vessels during operation, effectively reduces the amount of blood loss during operation, shortens the indwelling time of thoracic drainage tube, and is conducive to postoperative rehabilitation of patients.
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.