ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2024
Clinical effectiveness of robotic-assisted compared to open or video-assisted lobectomy in Germany: a real-world data analysis.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementation of a robot-assisted thoracic surgery program at a German center: analysis of the first 100 consecutive cases.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparative short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted vs video-assisted thoracic surgery in lung cancer: a multicenter retrospective study from EPITHOR with a quality audit.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
Abstract
objectivesDespite robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) lobectomy being on the rise in Europe, the majority of lobectomies in Germany are still performed with an open or thoracoscopic [video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS)] approach. Empirical evidence in favour of RATS lobectomy is inconsistent. This retrospective cohort study investigates the impact of RATS lobectomy compared with open thoracic surgery (OPEN) and VATS lobectomy on short-term outcomes in Germany using multicentre real-world data.
methodsAnonymized routine data from Germany from 2018 to 2020 were retrospectively analysed. These data were provided by 61 German hospitals. Propensity score matching with subsequent generalized linear models was performed for statistical analysis. Additionally, in order to test the robustness of the results, multivariable regression analyses with cluster-robust standard errors were used.
resultsA total of 2498 patients with lobectomy were identified: in 1345 patients OPEN, in 983 VATS and 170 a RATS lobectomy was performed. RATS-compared to OPEN and VATS-reduced length of stay (LOS) by 28% or 4.2 days [confidence interval: 2.9; 5.4] and by 13% or 1.6 days [confidence interval: 0.2; 3.0], respectively. The risk of pneumonia was reduced by 5.3 percentage points in the RATS group compared to both OPEN and VATS (P = 0.07/0.01). RATS-compared to an open approach-reduces the risk of blood transfusions by 8.8 percentage points (P < 0.001) and LOS on the intensive care unit (P < 0.001).
conclusionsThis study provides strong support that RATS lobectomy outperforms OPEN or VATS lobectomy in terms of hospital LOS, and short-term in-hospital postoperative complications in the real-world scenario in Germany.
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.