ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2024
Advantages of robot-assisted resection of large mediastinal tumors: a single-center preliminary study.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative meta-analysis of robot- and video-assisted surgery for thymoma: efficacy, learning curve, and economic burden in 7347 patients.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Robot‑assisted thoracoscopic surgery for pediatric mediastinal tumors: a 5‑year experience with 168 cases.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic mediastinal tumor resection: a propensity score-matched analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Impact of the expanded indication of robot-assisted thoracic surgery for mediastinal tumors.General thoracic and cardiovascular 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) for sizable mediastinal masses with a minimum diameter ≥6 cm, compared with video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and open surgery. This study enrolled 130 patients with mediastinal tumors with no less than 6 cm diameter in Zhongnan Hospital, Wuhan University, including 33 patients who underwent RATS, 52 patients who underwent VATS and 45 patients who underwent open surgery. After classifying based on mass size and whether it has invaded or not, we compared their clinical characteristics and perioperative outcomes. There was no significant difference in age, gender, mass size, myasthenia gravis, mass location, pathological types (p > 0.05) in three groups. Patients undergoing open surgery typically presenting at a more advanced stage (p < 0.05). No obvious difference was discovered in the average postoperative length of stay, operation duration, chest tube duration and average postoperative day 1 drainage output between RATS group and VATS group (p > 0.05), while intraoperative blood loss in RATS group was significantly lower than VATS group (p = 0.046). Moreover, the postoperative length of stay, operation duration, chest tube duration and intraoperative blood loss in RATS group were significantly lower than open surgery group (p < 0.001). RATS is a secure and efficient approach for removing large mediastinal masses at early postoperative period. In comparison with VATS, RATS is associated with lower intraoperative blood loss. Compared with open surgery, RATS is also associated with shorter postoperative length of stay, operation duration, chest tube duration and intraoperative blood loss.
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.