ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Video-Assisted vs. Robotic-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery in Lung Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Techniques and Outcomes.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 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
- Behavioral speech therapy intervention can improve the postoperative pain and performance status of lung cancer patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Trial
- Body mass index as a predictor of postoperative complications after anatomical lung resection.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of short-term outcomes, inflammatory markers, and complications in robotic-assistedJournal of thoracic disease · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lung cancer is the primary cause of cancer-related mortality globally; hence, several medical and surgical approaches have been developed for its management. This can be easily recognized with the evolution from the traditional open thoracotomy toward minimally invasive procedures-in particular, video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS)-in treating lung cancer. There has been a lot of controversy around the advantages and limitations of these procedures. VATS has been proven to be beneficial in treating early-stage lung cancer. Yet, the restricted mobility of its instruments, as well as the lack of a three-dimensional visualization of anatomical components, make the new RATS desired. RATS uses advanced technology, which has resulted in an exceptional high-definition, three-dimensional image of the working field. This has also led to fine dissection with great precision and accuracy, better lymph node removal, reduced postoperative recovery time, and better outcomes. Compared to VATS, there is less blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and less pleural effusion drainage. Despite its higher cost due to the expensive surgical systems, training and maintenance fees, and longer operative time, RATS has started to gain more use, potentially enhancing patient outcomes as experience and technological improvements progress.
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.