ArticleCureus2024
A Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Thoracic Surgery Versus Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery Following Lung Cancer Surgery at a Tertiary Hospital in the United Kingdom: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating Surgical Approaches in Early NSCLC: A Meta-Analysis of Robot-Assisted and Video-Assisted Techniques.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- One surgery, three approaches: perioperative outcomes and diagnostic strategies in robotic-assisted thymectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) is gaining popularity in lung resection surgeries; however, its quality outcome measures require further evaluation. This study compared the short-term perioperative outcomes of lung resection surgeries performed using RATS and video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) at a tertiary hospital in the UK.
methodsWe performed a retrospective comparative analysis of 496 patients who underwent lung resection surgery at Castle Hill Hospital in the UK between January 2021 and April 2024. In the pre-matched cohort, 162 patients underwent RATS compared to 334 who underwent VATS. Using propensity matching based on the patient's forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) percentage of predicted age and body mass index (BMI), we included 324 patients in the analysis. Of these, 162 underwent RATS, and 162 underwent VATS, demonstrating satisfactory performance indicators.
resultsThe results from our analysis depicted that RATS had a significantly lower rate of prolonged air leak (≥7 minutes) than VATS (5.5% versus 7.1%, mean difference -1.32, 95% CI: -0.89-3.08, p = 0.034). RATS patients also had shorter duration of hospital stay (3.8 ± 4.1 days versus 4.7 ± 4.8, mean difference -0.901, 95% CI: -1.886-0.084; p = 0.073) and had more mediastinal lymph node dissections (39.5% versus 35.2%) than VATS. However, the proportion of patients who were upstaged after histopathological analysis of the resected lymph nodes was not different between the two groups. Furthermore, the groups had no significant differences regarding the infection rate, intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) use, and theatre return.
conclusionRobotic and video-assisted technologies produced equivalent results for the majority of the short-term outcomes evaluated. Additional research is necessary to confirm RATS's efficacy and determine its potential advantages over VATS for lung resection surgeries.
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.