ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2023
Long-term outcomes of robotic versus video-assisted pulmonary lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of reconstructed patient data.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 6 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 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
- Robot-assisted versus video-assisted surgery for early functional recovery in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-based matching studies.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
- 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
- Pooled it
- 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
- Impact of modern minimally invasive approaches on pulmonary resection outcomes: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Current state of evidence for RATS lobectomy for NSCLC.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic vs thoracoscopic vs open lobectomy and segmentectomy for lung cancer: a multicenter cohort study in the ATS of Milan.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
- 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
- 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
- Video-Assisted vs. Robotic-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery in Lung Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Techniques and Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Feasibility and safety of uniport robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in initial series of anatomical pulmonary resections under learning curve.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2025Article
- Robotic Segmentectomy in a Patient with a Displaced Left Upper Division Bronchus and Fused Fissure.Surgical case reports · 2025Article
- Multiport robotic anatomic lung resections: a dodecalogue for neophytes.Journal of visualized surgery · 2024Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) are two viable options in patients undergoing lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, the debate on which one is superior is unceasing. Methods: PubMed and Scopus databases were queried for studies including patients who underwent either VATS or RATS lobectomy. This meta-analysis is in accordance with the recommendations of the PRISMA statement. Individual patient data on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were extracted from Kaplan-Meier curves. One- and two-stage survival analyses, and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Results: Ten studies met our eligibility criteria, incorporating 1,231 and 814 patients in the VATS and RATS groups, respectively. Patients who underwent VATS had similar OS compared with those who underwent RATS [hazard ratio (HR): 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-1.27, P=0.538] during a weighted median follow-up of 51.7 months, and this was validated by the two-stage meta-analysis (HR: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.85-1.90, P=0.24, I Conclusions: In patients undergoing lobectomy for NSCLC, VATS and RATS have equivalent overall and DFS at a median follow-up of 51.7 months.
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.