SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2023
Comparison of robot-assisted thoracic surgery versus video-assisted thoracic surgery in the treatment of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 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
- 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 versus video-assisted thoracic surgery for patients undergoing lung resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.General thoracic and cardiovascular 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
- Economic sustainability of a newly established robotic thoracic surgery programme in a public healthcare system: early experience from a high-volume latin American centre.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Observational
- 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
- Impact of modern minimally invasive approaches on pulmonary resection outcomes: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- The evolution of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery: current platforms, emerging technologies, and future perspectives - a narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic-assisted pulmonary resection with a periareolar assistant port: learning curve and propensity-matched comparison with the conventional-portal approach.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
- RoboticJournal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Trends and Outcomes of Lung Cancer Surgery in South Korea.Cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Benchmarking Large Language Models Using a Best Evidence Topic Report in a Patient With Early Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic Thoracic Surgery: Current Landscape and Future Directions.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2026Review
- Uniportal robotic-assisted left upper lobectomy with pulmonary artery reconstruction for a central lung cancer: a step-by-step surgical technique.Journal of visualized surgery · 2026Article
- Uniportal versus multiportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgery pulmonary resections: a propensity score-matched analysis.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Quality of Lymph Node Dissection in Lung Cancer Surgery: A Comparative Analysis of Robotic-Assisted Versus Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery Using Novel Pathological Criteria.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2025Article
- Prehabilitation as a key component of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program in patients with lung cancer: a narrative review.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2025Review
- 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
- A Precision Surgery Framework for Lung Resection: Robotic, Video-Assisted, and Open Segmentectomy.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Previous studies have compared robot-assisted thoracic surgery(RATS) with video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) in the treatment of patients with lung cancer, but results were conflicting. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of RATS with VATS in the treatment of patients with lung cancer. Materials and methods: Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials or prospective cohort studies comparing the clinical outcomes of RATS and VATS from inception to 22 July 2023. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess risk of bias. Meta-analyses of length of hospital stay, postoperative duration of drainage, postoperative complications, operative time, conversion, estimated blood loss, the number of dissected lymph nodes and stations, 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality were performed. Results: In total 5 studies were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 614 patients were included, of which 299 patients were treated by RATS and 315 patients treated by VATS. Blood loss was significantly less in RATS group than that in VATS (MD = -17.14, 95% CI -29.96 ~ -4.33, P = 0.009). More nodes stations were dissected in RATS group compared with VATS group(MD= 1.07, 95% CI 0.79 ~ 1.36, P < 0.001). No significant difference occurred between RATS and VATS in length of hospital stay(MD= -0.19, 95% CI -0.98~0.61), readmission(OR=0.74, 95%CI 0.36~1.51, P=0.41), operative time(MD=11.43 95% CI -8.41~31.26, P=0.26), conversion(OR=0.58, 95% CI 0.29~1.17, P=0.13), number of dissected lymph nodes(MD=0.98, 95% CI -0.02~1.97, P=0.05), upstaging rate(OR =0.67, 95% CI 0.38 ~ 1.18, P =0.16, I Conclusion: RATS is a feasible and safe treatment that can achieve better surgical outcomes compared with VATS in terms of short-term outcomes. Except of higher total cost, RATS has obvious advantage in lymphadenectomy and control of intraoperative bleeding. However, large sample and long follow-up randomized clinical trials comparing RATS with VATS are still necessary to better demonstrate the advantages of RATS for lung cancer. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, Identifier CRD42023446653.
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.