ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2025
Comparison of short-term outcomes between multi-arm uniportal and multiport robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery based on propensity score matching.
Article in World 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Perioperative outcomes and safety of Uniportal Robotic-Assisted Thoracic Surgery (U-RATS) for anatomic lung resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Impact on Respiratory Mechanics of Uniportal-Biportal Robotic Lung Resection Without Capnothorax Versus Multiportal Approach With Capnothorax: A Prospective Cohort Observational Study.Anesthesiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Minimally invasive thymectomy: comparative analysis of short-term outcomes after video-assisted thoracoscopy and two robotic platforms.Frontiers in surgery · 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
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the short-term outcomes of multi-arm uniportal robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (URATS) and multiport robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (MRATS) and to evaluate the safety and feasibility of URATS.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data from patients who underwent robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in the Department of Thoracic Surgery II at Xinjiang Tumor Hospital between May 2023 and January 2025. Patients were categorized into the URATS and MRATS groups based on the surgical approach. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed according to the clinical characteristics of the patients, and the short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.
resultsA total of 353 patients were included in this study, comprising 153 patients in the URATS group and 200 patients in the MRATS group. After PSM, each group consisted of 115 patients. The intraoperative blood loss in the URATS group was significantly lower than that in the MRATS group [median blood loss: 50 (30,100) mL vs. 100 (50,100) mL; P < 0.001]. The incidence of postoperative complications was lower in the URATS group compared to the MRATS group (5.2% vs. 10.4%, P = 0.041). The median duration of chest tube drainage was longer in the URATS group than in the MRATS group [4 (3,5) days vs. 3 (3,4) days, P = 0.003], and the median postoperative hospital stay was also slightly longer in the URATS group than in the MRATS group [5 (4,6) days vs. 4 (4,5) days, P = 0.037]. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in other perioperative parameters (P > 0.05).
conclusionFor pulmonary resection and mediastinal tumor resection, URATS demonstrates perioperative outcomes comparable to those of MRATS, with favorable safety and feasibility. URATS not only minimizes access-related surgical trauma but also results in a lower incidence of postoperative complications. Furthermore, it offers superior postoperative cosmetic outcomes, making it a promising technique for clinical application.
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.