ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
A robotic-assisted thymectomy is equivalent to a transsternal resection in large thymomas.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Perioperative safety and efficacy of minimally invasive vs. open thymectomy for large thymomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robot-assisted versus open thymectomy a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score matched studies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Evolving paradigms in thymoma surgery and multidisciplinary care: a narrative review.Mediastinum (Hong Kong, China) · 2026Review
- One surgery, three approaches: perioperative outcomes and diagnostic strategies in robotic-assisted thymectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) is widely accepted for small-to-moderate-size thymomas. However, limited data exists comparing the feasibility of RATS for large tumors ≥5 cm. The aim of this study is to compare the oncological and perioperative outcomes of open thymectomy (OT) versus RATS for these larger tumors. Methods: The National Cancer Database (2010-2020) was queried for patients who underwent RATS and OT. Patients were excluded if they had thymic carcinoma, neoadjuvant therapy, tumors <5 cm, and underwent a video-assisted thoracoscopic approach. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, and mortality rates. Survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and compared using log-rank test. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed (1:1, Caliper 0.2 without replacement), controlling for age, race, facility type, tumor size, comorbidity index, and year of diagnosis. Results: Of the 1,178 patients identified, 1,015 (86.2%) underwent OT, and 163 (13.8%) underwent RATS. RATS cases were more likely to be performed in academic centers and have a smaller median tumor size compared to OT cases. In the matched cohort, there was no difference between the groups' 30-day readmission, 30-day and 90-day mortality rates. RATS patients had a shorter median LOS compared to OT patients. The median follow-up time was 76 months; 5-year OS was 88% after OT and 90% after RATS (P=0.23). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, the surgical approach was not a predictor of worse survival. Conclusions: Patients who underwent RATS for tumors ≥5 cm had equivalent survival and perioperative outcomes compared to OT with a shorter LOS.
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.