ArticleJournal of surgical oncology2025
Robot-Assisted Versus Open Surgery for the Resection of Large Thymomas: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Journal of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Combined Additional Resections on the Surgical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Resection of Thymic Epithelial Tumors.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Optimising individualised treatment decisions for locally advanced thymoma: precision selection of minimally invasive surgery and postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Emerging technologies in thoracic surgery: artificial intelligence, robotic-assisted surgery, and telesurgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Oncologic outcomes and predictors of recurrence following minimally invasive and open surgery for thymoma.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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRobot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) is increasingly becoming the preferred surgical method for the resection of thymomas. We initiated the current study to evaluate perioperative outcomes and early recurrence associated with the surgical approach.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, 35 patients were included in the RATS group and compared with 29 patients who underwent open surgery between 2010 and 2022 for histologically confirmed large thymoma > 50 mm in TNM Stages I, II, and IIIa.
resultsHistologic subtypes and pathologic stages were similar in both groups. The median duration of chest drainage and median length of stay was significantly shorter in the RATS group (1 vs. 4 days, p < 0.0001, and 4 vs. 10 days, p < 0.0001, respectively). Postoperative complications occurred more frequently in the open surgery group (cumulative incidence of 8.6% vs. 37.9%, p = 0.0048). The median follow-up time was 28 months in the RATS group and 69 months in the open surgery group. Five-year recurrence-free survival was 96.9% without significant differences between the two groups.
conclusionThere is no evidence of increased early recurrence associated with robotic surgery. The length of hospital stay, the duration of thoracic drainage, and the significantly lower complications favor the robot-assisted approach.
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.