ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2024
Results of an exploratory survey within ESTS membership in 2022 on current trend of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery and its training perspectives.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Learning curve analysis of robotic-assisted thoracoscopic lung resection performed by a novice thoracic surgeon.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Analgesia in Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery: A Comparison Between Robotic Surgery and Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- Robotic thoracic surgery training in the UK and Republic of Ireland: national survey of trainee exposure, preparedness, and barriers.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- The training in thoracoscopic surgery: a comparative study and bibliometric analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery training in France: a nation-wide survey from young surgeons.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Aesculapius meets Vulcanus: robotic chest surgery.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 12 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRobotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) is increasingly used in our specialty. We surveyed European Society of Thoracic Surgeons membership with the objective to determine current status of robotic thoracic surgery practice including training perspectives.
methodsA survey of 17 questions was rolled out with 1 surgeon per unit responses considered as acceptable.
resultsA total of 174 responses were obtained; 56% (97) were board-certified thoracic surgeons; 28% (49) were unit heads. Most responses came from Italy (20); 22% (38) had no robot in their institutions, 31% (54) had limited access and only 17% (30) had full access including proctoring. Da Vinci Xi was the commonest system in 56% (96) centres, 25% (41) of them had dual console in all systems, whereas RATS simulator was available only in half (51.18% or 87). Video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) was the most commonly adopted surgical approach in 81% of centres (139), followed by thoracotomy in 67% (115) and RATS in 36% (62); 39% spent their training time on robotic simulator for training, 51% on robotic wet/dry lab, which being no significantly different to 46-59% who had training on VATS platform. There was indeed huge overlap between simulator models or varieties usage; 52% (90) reported of robotic surgery not a part of training curriculum with no plans to introduce it in future. Overall, 51.5% (89) responded of VATS experience being helpful in robotic training in view of familiarity with minimally invasive surgery anatomical views and dissection; 71% (124) reported that future thoracic surgeons should be proficient in both VATS and RATS. Half of the respondents found no difference in earlier chest drain removal with either approach (90), 35% (60) reported no difference in postoperative pain and 49% (84) found no difference in hospital stay; 52% (90) observed better lymph node harvest by RATS.
conclusionsSurvey concluded on a positive response with at least 71% (123) surgeons recommending to adopt robotics in future.
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.