ArticleMagyar onkologia2024
[Robot-assisted thoracic surgery. Our first experiences].
Article in Magyar onkologia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our goal was to examine the postoperative indicators after the first 300 thoracic robotic cases in the National Institute of Oncology. We retrospectively analyzed the clinicopathological and postoperative indicators of the first 300 patients. We also compared the first 30 cases performed by one surgeon to his 30 VATS (video-assisted thoracic surgery) and open cases. The average hospital stay was 5.2 days, the chest tube was removed on the second day. Conversion, need for reoperation and morbidity was low (1.8%, 2% and 10.6%, respectively). The change in operating time slows down after 20 cases. The hospital stay and complications were slightly favorable with RATS (robotic-assisted thoracic surgery) than with VATS. The intensive care stay, however, was significantly shorter while the amount of removed lymph nodes was significantly higher in RATS procedures. As a conclusion, RATS is a safe technique in thoracic surgery. Moreover, more lymph nodes are removed with RATS which can lead to better staging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39299688PMC11870701What 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.