ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2025
Robotic-assisted mediastinal lymphadenectomy in lung cancer: a narrative review.
Review 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Radicality of mediastinal lymphadenectomy in anatomic lung resection for lung cancer: a comparative analysis of uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic and robotic-assisted thoracoscopic approaches.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Long-Term Oncological Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Updated Review.Cancers · 2026Review
- Short-term outcomes of multi-arm uniportal robotic thoracic surgery versus uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for non-small cell lung cancer.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Biportal-RATS vs. Uniportal-VATS for Lung Resections: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis from Early Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study is to undertake a narrative review of the oncological adequacy of mediastinal lymphadenectomy performed via robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) in comparison with video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) and thoracotomy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The focus of the review is on lymph node yield, nodal station dissection, and nodal upstaging rates. A narrative review of literature published in the last decade was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases. Studies examining mediastinal lymphadenectomy outcomes for RATS, VATS, or thoracotomy were included in the discussion. The analysis of 19 studies from diverse geographical regions showed that in six out of nine comparative studies, RATS demonstrated superior lymph node retrieval compared to VATS, with statistically significant differences. RATS achieved comparable or superior nodal station dissection rates and showed particular advantages in upstaging from clinical N0 to pathological N2 status. Additionally, RATS demonstrated favourable perioperative outcomes with reduced morbidity and mortality rates compared to conventional approaches. RATS represents a reliable and oncologically sound approach to mediastinal lymphadenectomy, with potential advantages over conventional techniques. Its enhanced visualization and precision make it an increasingly utilised option for NSCLC treatment in centres with robotic capabilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40464809What 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.