ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Faster, safer, better recovery: a modified robotic-assisted segmentectomy versus conventional approaches in early stage lung cancer.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to evaluate the perioperative results of patients who receive robot-assisted thoracoscopic (RATS) modified segmentectomy and to compare the effectiveness and safety of this approach with those of traditional segmentectomy methods. A retrospective analysis was conducted on perioperative data from 587 consecutive patients diagnosed with early stage lung cancer who underwent robot-assisted thoracoscopic segmentectomy between January 2020 and September 2024. Using a 1:1 propensity score matching approach, 326 patients were paired based on clinical variables, such as age, sex, body weight, height, pulmonary function test results, and tumor size as measured by CT. Comparative assessments of perioperative outcomes and oncological parameters were performed between the matched groups. Of the 587 individuals included in the study, 178 underwent conventional segmentectomy (CS), while 409 received modified segmentectomy (MS). After applying propensity score matching, a total of 328 patients were retained for the final comparative analysis. The MS group demonstrated a significantly shorter operative time (83.72 ± 25.46 min vs. 121.01 ± 35.74 min, P < 0.001), lower total postoperative drainage volume (359.66 ± 413.70 ml vs. 527.98 ± 381.32 ml, P < 0.001), and a reduced postoperative hospital stay (3.76 ± 2.08 days vs. 4.69 ± 1.45 days, P < 0.001).Although the MS group exhibited a higher mean estimated blood loss, this difference did not reach statistical significance (58.87 ± 77.57 ml vs. 44.27 ± 55.35 ml, P = 0.051). Additionally, tumor size was significantly smaller in the MS cohort (8.67 ± 2.82 mm vs. 10.41 ± 4.08 mm, P < 0.001). Complete (R0) resection was achieved in all cases. The modified RATS segmentectomy offers significant benefits compared to conventional segmentectomy, such as shorter operative duration, reduced postoperative drainage, and a shorter postoperative hospital stay. These findings demonstrate the technical feasibility and potential advantages of this approach. However, further studies are needed to evaluate long-term oncological outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40781576What 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.