ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2024
A comparison of three-port and four-port Da Vinci robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for lung cancer: a retrospective study.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Minimally invasive segmentectomy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a comparative analysis of robotic and thoracoscopic approaches.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Relationship between gender and perioperative clinical features in lung cancer patients who underwent VATS lobectomy.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAt present, research comparing the short-term postoperative outcomes of anatomical resection in lung cancer under different ports of da Vinci robot-assisted surgery is insufficient. This report aimed to compare the outcomes of three-port and four-port da Vinci robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for radical dissection of lung cancer.
methods171 consecutive patients who presented to our hospital from January 2020 to October 2021 with non-small cell lung cancer and treated with da Vinci robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for radical resection of lung cancer were retrospectively collected and divided into the three-port group (n = 97) and the four-port group (n = 74). The general clinical data, perioperative data and life quality were individually compared between the two groups.
resultsAll the 171 patients successfully underwent surgeries. Compared to the four-port group, the three-port group had comparable baseline characteristics in terms of age, sex, tumor location, tumor size, history of chronic disease, pathological type, and pathological staging. The three-port group also had shorter operation time, less intraoperative blood loss, lower chest tube drainage volume, shorter postoperative hospitalization stay durations, but showed no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). Postoperative 24, 48 and 72 h visual analogue scale pain scores were lower in the three-port group (p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in the hospitalization costs (P = 0.664), number or stations of total lymph node dissected (p > 0.05) and postoperative respiratory complications (P > 0.05).
conclusionsThe three-port robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is safe and effective and took better outcomes than the four-port robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in non-small cell lung cancer.
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.