ArticleThoracic cancer2024
Early patient-reported outcomes after robotic-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Pain management strategies following thoracic surgery: best practices and innovations.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- RoboticJournal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Initial experience with the Saroa surgical system for early-stage lung cancer: a comparative study with the da Vinci surgical system.Surgery today · 2026Article
- 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
- Early patient-reported outcomes after robotic-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy.Thoracic cancer · 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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRobotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) can achieve traditional clinical outcomes comparable to those of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). However, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) during the early period after RATS and VATS remain unclear. This study aimed to utilize longitudinal electronic PRO (ePRO) assessments to evaluate symptom burden and functional status between these approaches from patients' perspective.
methodsThis study comprised patients who underwent lobectomy via RATS or VATS for non-small cell lung cancer. We collected multiple-time-point PROs data from the prospective longitudinal study via an ePRO system. Symptom severity and function status were assessed using the perioperative symptom assessment for patients undergoing lung surgery and were analyzed between groups using linear mixed-effects models.
resultsOf the 164 patients, 42 underwent RATS and 122 underwent VATS. After propensity score matching (PSM), 42 RATS and 84 VATS exhibited similar baseline characteristics. During the 7-day postoperative period, participants underwent RATS reported milder pain (p = 0.014), coughing (p < 0.001), drowsiness (p = 0.001), and distress (p = 0.045) compared with those underwent VATS. Moreover, participants in RATS group showed less functional interference with walking (p < 0.001) and general activity (p < 0.001). RATS exhibited a shorter postoperative hospitalization (p = 0.021) but higher hospital cost (p < 0.001). Meanwhile, short-term clinical outcomes of operative time, dissected lymph node stations, chest tube drainage, and postoperative complication rates were comparable.
conclusionPROs are important metrics for assessing patients' recovery after lobectomy. Compared with VATS, RATS may induce less symptom burden and better functional status for patients in the early postoperative period.
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.