ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
Short-term outcomes of robotic-
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robotic segmentectomy in a day-surgery setting: feasibility is proven, but is it always appropriate?Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative effectiveness of robotic and video assisted thoracic surgery for lung cancer across key outcomes.iScience · 2026Article
- Safety and cost-effectiveness of day surgery in Da Vinci-assisted pulmonary segmentectomy.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Refining Surgical Standards: The Role of Robotic-Assisted Segmentectomy in Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.Cancers · 2025Review
- Impact of robotic-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery on efficacy and quality of life in patients with pulmonary opacities: a propensity score-matched analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- The impact of using suture ligatures as a replacement for staplers and reducing excessive thermal energy on outcomes after pulmonary segmentectomy: a prospective cohort study.Frontiers in oncology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: At present, few articles compare the differences between robot-assisted thoracic surgeries (RATSs) and video-assisted thoracic surgeries (VATSs) in the day surgery model and there is also little literature on what factors influence delayed discharge from day surgery. This study aims to compare short-term outcomes between RATS and VATS for segmental lung resection in a day surgery setting, and to identify risk factors for delayed discharge. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 204 patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who underwent segmental lung resection via RATS or VATS at the First People's Hospital of Changzhou City from January 2021 to December 2023. The clinical data and short-term efficacy of the two groups were compared, and the patients were divided into two subgroups based on whether the patients were discharged within 48 hours. One group was day surgery patients who were discharged within 48 hours, and the other group was day surgery patients with delayed discharge, so as to explore the factors affecting the delayed discharge of day surgery. Results: Compared to the VATS group, the RATS group had a shorter average surgery duration (58.59±12.20 Conclusions: In the surgery setting, RATSs showed better outcomes compared to VATSs, including shorter surgical duration, reduced intraoperative blood loss, lower postoperative drainage volume, shorter drainage duration, and fewer postoperative complications. History of tumor, intraoperative bleeding, use of analgesic medication in the 24-hour postoperative period, and duration of surgery were risk factors for delayed discharge from day surgery.
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.