ArticleUpdates in surgery2024
Comparison of clinical efficacy of da Vinci robot-assisted lung cancer surgery with two-, three- and four-hole approaches.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Orifice reduction strategies for da Vinci robotic surgery have been a hot topic of research in recent years. We retrospectively analyzed the perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) with two, three, and four-hole approaches in radical lung cancer surgery. Our results revealed that the two-hole group has advantages in terms of operative time, postoperative 3-day drainage, postoperative drainage time, postoperative hospital stay and postoperative day 3 visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores. There were no significant differences between the three groups in terms of intraoperative bleeding, number of lymph nodes dissected, VAS pain scores on postoperative days 1 and 2, and postoperative complications. In addition, the two-hole group was superior to the three-hole and four-hole groups in terms of C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT) and interleukin 10 (IL-10). In summary, the RATS two-hole approach has advantages in operation time, rapid recovery after operation and some postoperative inflammatory indicators, and is worth promoting in hospitals that are skilled in three-hole and four-hole da Vinci robot surgery and have conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37837568What 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.