ArticleCureus2025
Review of Outcomes Between Robotic and Thoracoscopic Thoracic Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsSurgical management of lung cancer has evolved over the last two decades from open thoracotomy to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and, more recently, robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS). We present our initial experience with RATS and hypothesize that overall outcomes will be improved compared to VATS and will result in overall cost savings.
methodsA retrospective review of prospectively collected data was conducted on all patients who underwent RATS over the first year and a half since robotic surgery was introduced, compared to VATS over the two years prior to the initiation of robotic surgery in our institution. Demographics, operative, and postoperative data were obtained, and statistical analysis was performed using a t-test.
resultsPatients undergoing RATS (n = 42) were older (70.31 +/- 8.89 vs. 64.64 +/- 12.53, p = 0.018) compared to the VATS group (n = 48). RATS operative times were longer, 190.26 minutes compared to 127.84 minutes (P=0.001) in the VATS group. Estimated blood loss (EBL) was significantly lower in the RATS group (74 ml versus 208 ml; p < 0.05). The mean length of stay was shorter in the RATS group (3.88 versus 6.22 days; p < 0.05). All postoperative outcomes were similar, including complications and 30-day mortality (RATS, 2.1%, versus VATS, 4.2%; p > 0.05). There were no statistical differences in length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (0.3 versus 1.2 days; p > 0.05) or number of lymph nodes harvested (4.21 versus 3.81; p > 0.05).
conclusionRATS is safe and technically feasible, and short-term outcomes are comparable to those of the conventional VATS approach.
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.