ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Learning curve for full-port robot-assisted mediastinal mass resection: a single-centre retrospective study.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perioperative outcomes and surgeon-specific temporal trends in subxiphoid robot-assisted anterior mediastinal surgery: a single-center descriptive study.Journal 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The advent of da Vinci robotic technology has revolutionized the surgical management of mediastinal masses. However, research on the learning curve of full-port robot-assisted mediastinal mass resection remains limited. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 74 consecutive patients who underwent full-port robot-assisted mediastinal mass resection performed by a single surgeon at our center. We performed multiple linear regression analysis to evaluate and standardize the operative time (OT). Subsequently, the cumulative sum (CUSUM) control charts were constructed to compare learning curve models derived from standardized versus nonstandardized OT data. Finally, a systematic evaluation was conducted to assess the perioperative parameters. Lesion size and intraoperative blood loss were identified via multiple linear regression as significant factors influencing the OT (P < 0.05), with the OT standardized using regression coefficients. A CUSUM chart based on the OT was then generated. The learning curve model based on nonstandardized operative time data demonstrated an earlier peak than that derived from standardized data. Further analysis of the standardized operative time revealed a peak in the learning curve at the 33rd case. Cases 1-33 were classified as the learning phase and cases 34-74 as the proficiency phase. The mean OT in the proficiency phase was significantly shorter, and intraoperative blood loss was notably lower than that in the learning phase (P < 0.05 for both). However, no significant differences were identified between the two phases for other perioperative outcomes (P > 0.05).
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.