ReviewCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2025
Technical Innovations and Complex Cases in Robotic Surgery for Lung Cancer: A Narrative Review.
Review in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery for resectable lung cancer: efficacy, safety and surgical approaches - an umbrella review of meta-analyses.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Implementation of a robot-assisted thoracic surgery program at a German center: analysis of the first 100 consecutive cases.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Robotic-assisted pulmonary resection with a periareolar assistant port: learning curve and propensity-matched comparison with the conventional-portal approach.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Long-Term Oncological Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Updated Review.Cancers · 2026Review
- AI-enhanced robotic hands: a breakthrough in early tumour detection and removal.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Real-world uptake of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy and surgery in patients with stage II-IIIB non-small cell lung cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Refining Surgical Standards: The Role of Robotic-Assisted Segmentectomy in Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.Cancers · 2025Review
- Robotic-Assisted Vascular Surgery: A Clinical Perspective.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For over two decades, robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) has revolutionized thoracic oncology. With enhanced visualization, dexterity, and precision, RATS has reduced blood loss, shortened hospital stays, and sped up recovery compared to traditional surgery or video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). The use of 3D high-definition imaging and articulated instruments allows for complex resections and advanced lymph node assessment. RATS delivers oncological outcomes similar to open surgery and VATS, with high rates of complete (R0) resections and acceptable complication rates. Its minimally invasive nature promotes quicker recovery. Advances in imaging software and augmented reality further enhance surgical accuracy and reduce intraoperative risks. However, RATS has some limitations, including high costs and a lack of tactile feedback, and certain complex procedures, such as extended resections and intrapericardial interventions, remain challenging. With growing experience and technological advances, RATS shows promise in reducing morbidity, improving quality of life, and expanding access to advanced oncologic care. This article reviews the evolution, benefits, and limitations of RATS in NSCLC treatment, highlighting its emerging role in managing complex cases.
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.