ArticleSurgery open science2024
Early adoption of robotic lung resection in an established video assisted thoracic surgery practice.
Article in Surgery open science, 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.
- Robotic-assisted cardiothoracic surgery: a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of trends, innovations, and future directions.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Review
- Outcomes of minimally invasive lung resection with concomitant chest wall resection in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Journal of thoracic disease · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reported advantages to robotic thoracic surgery include shorter length of stay (LOS), improved lymphadenectomy, and decreased complications. It is uncertain if these benefits occur when introducing robotics into a well-established video-assisted thoracoscopy (VATS) practice. We compared the two approaches to investigate these advantages. Materials and methods: IRB approval was obtained for this project. Patients who underwent segmentectomy or lobectomy from May 2016-December 2018 were propensity-matched 2: 1 (VATS: robotic) and compared using weighted logistic regression with age, gender, Charlson Comorbidity Index, surgery type, stage, Exparel, and epidural as covariates. Complication rates, operation times, number of sampled lymph nodes, pain level, disposition, and LOS were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum and with Rao-Scott Chi-squared tests. Results: 213 patients (142 VATS and 71 robot) were matched. Duration of robotic cases was longer than VATS (median 186 min (IQR 78) vs. 164 min (IQR 78.75); Conclusions: The robotic approach facilitates better lymph node sampling, even in an established VATS practice.
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.