ArticleAnnals of cardiac anaesthesia2025
Analysis of First 50 Robotic-Assisted Thoracic Surgeries in a University Teaching Hospital: Anesthetic Considerations and Postoperative Outcomes.
Article in Annals of cardiac anaesthesia, 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.
- From Scopes to Bots: The Clinical Journey from VATS to RATS.Annals of cardiac anaesthesia · 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
introductionRobotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS), due to its multiple advantages, has revolutionized the medical field in recent years. Yet, its implementation has been slower compared to other surgical fields. More data on the benefits of RATS regarding patient outcomes are required to justify the high costs of equipment. This study aimed to expand our understanding of anesthetic management of RATS and to analyze the postoperative patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe r-retrospective descriptive study of the clinical history of 50 patients who underwent RATS using Da Vinci dVX® between 2018 and 2021 in the Thoracic Surgery Department of a single-center university teaching hospital. Statistical analyses of the clinical-demographic variables and those related to airway management, mechanical ventilation, intraoperative hemodynamics, and postoperative outcomes were carried out. Subgroup analysis of patient cases was performed based on the date of surgical intervention to compare the operating time, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications as surrogates of the learning curve.
results92% of patients were easily intubated with double-lumen tubes (76% were VivaSight-DL and 12% standard double-lumen tubes) following the usual protocol, while in 8% of patients, a difficult airway was detected and lung isolation using bronchial blockers was performed. During the one-lung ventilation (OLV) period, 24.4% of patients suffered arterial hypotension and 19.5% required intravenous vasoconstrictors probably due to the capnothorax. The mean duration of the interventions was 135.4 minutes. The average hospital stay was 5.4 days on average, and the mean number of complications was 0.48% per person. No statistically significant difference was found between early and late patient subgroups in terms of operating time, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications.
conclusionsRATS is a safe intervention which is well managed anesthetically by the use of double-lumen tubes with embedded camera. The use of protective ventilation strategy, including optimal PEEP and lung recruitment maneuver, during one-lung ventilation is effective and hemodynamically well-tolerated in the majority of the patients (80%). The RATS approach is associated with short hospital stay and low postoperative complication incidence. Further studies are warranted to explore new anesthetic management techniques and compare the benefit of robot-assisted thoracic surgery with conventional surgical approaches.
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.