ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024
Robotic-assisted versus video-assisted lobectomy for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer: the RVlob randomized controlled trial.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03134534 (The Study of Robotic-assisted Thoracoscopic Lobectomy Versus Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Lobectomy for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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.
The Study of Robotic-assisted Thoracoscopic Lobectomy Versus Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Lobectomy for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (RVlob)
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Perioperative outcomes and nodal station assessment after robotic-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic segmentectomy for early-stage NSCLC: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery versus video-assisted thoracic surgery for patients undergoing lung resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of dynamic bundled positioning care on postoperative position-related transient neurological symptoms in patients undergoing robot-assisted lobectomy: A prospective cohort study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Observational
- Impact of modern minimally invasive approaches on pulmonary resection outcomes: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- The evolution of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery: current platforms, emerging technologies, and future perspectives - a narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- RoboticJournal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Management of serious complications in robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.JTCVS techniques · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of short-term outcomes, inflammatory markers, and complications in robotic-assistedJournal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Long-Term Oncological Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Updated Review.Cancers · 2026Review
- [Expert Consensus on Shared Decision-making in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Ground-glass Opacity-featured Lung Adenocarcinoma].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2026Article
- Benchmarking Large Language Models Using a Best Evidence Topic Report in a Patient With Early Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic Thoracic Surgery: Current Landscape and Future Directions.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2026Review
- Beyond the platform: why surgical quality and surgeon proficiency outweigh the RATS vs. VATS debate in early-stage lung cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Evolving Resection Strategies for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers: Translating Trial Evidence to Real-World Practice.Cancers · 2025Article
- Robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS): learning curve and outcomes for 200 consecutive pulmonary lobectomies in a Norwegian hospital.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Trends in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in thoracic surgery from a bibliometric insight.Hereditas · 2025Article
- A retrospective real-world single-arm study evaluating the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with selected limited-stage small-cell lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Article
- Video-Assisted vs. Robotic-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery in Lung Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Techniques and Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Targeting the nuclear orphan receptor NR4A1: a key target in lung cancer progression and therapeutic resistance.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Management of iatrogenic bronchial tear during one-lung ventilation for robotic thoracic surgery.Anaesthesia reportsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The long-term survival and perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted lobectomy (RAL) and video-assisted lobectomy (VAL) in resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were found to be comparable in retrospective studies, but they have not been investigated in a randomized trial setting. We conducted the RVlob trial to investigate if RAL was non-inferior to VAL in patients with resectable NSCLC. Methods: In this single-center, open-label, and parallel-arm randomized controlled trial conducted in Ruijin Hospital (Shanghai, China) between May 2017 and May 2020, we randomly assigned patients with resectable NSCLC in a 1:1 ratio to receive either RAL or VAL. One of the primary endpoints was 3-year overall survival. Secondary endpoints included 3-year disease-free survival. The Kaplan-Meier approach was used to calculate overall survival and disease-free survival at 3 years. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03134534. Findings: A total of 320 patients were randomized to receive RAL (n = 157) or VAL (n = 163). The baseline characteristics of patients were well balanced between the two groups. After a median follow-up of 58.0 months, the 3-year overall survival was 94.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.0-98.3) in the RAL group and 91.5% (95% CI, 87.2-96.0) in the VAL group (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.33-1.28; Interpretation: This study is the first randomized trial to show that RAL resulted in non-inferior overall survival compared with VAL in patients with resectable NSCLC. Based on our results, RAL is an equally oncologically effective treatment and can be considered as an alternative to VAL for resectable NSCLC. Funding: National Natural Science Foundation of China (82072557), National Key Research and Development Program of China (2021YFC2500900), Shanghai Municipal Education Commission-Gaofeng Clinical Medicine Grant (20172005, the 2nd round of disbursement), program of Shanghai Academic Research Leader from Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (20XD1402300), Novel Interdisciplinary Research Project from Shanghai Municipal Health Commission (2022JC023), and Interdisciplinary Program of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (YG2023ZD04).
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.