ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Pain and recovery after robotic vs. uniportal lobectomy for lung cancer: a comparative analysis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-Operative Outcomes and Different Pain Trajectories Between Uniportal Thoracoscopic, Multiport Robot-Assisted and Uniportal Robot-Assisted Major Lung Resection.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2026Article
- Benchmarking Large Language Models Using a Best Evidence Topic Report in a Patient With Early Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Use of preoperative placement of mini-midline catheters in patients undergoing thoracoscopic lung resection.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Beyond the platform: why surgical quality and surgeon proficiency outweigh the RATS vs. VATS debate in early-stage lung cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive thoracic surgery techniques, such as robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) and uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (UVATS), have revolutionized lung cancer treatment. However, comparative data on postoperative pain and functional recovery remain limited. This cohort study evaluates differences in pain intensity and pain-related activity limitations following radical lobectomy for lung cancer.
methodsA total of 140 patients undergoing lobectomy (70 RATS, 70 UVATS) were prospectively assessed. Pain intensity was measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and functional impact was evaluated with the Daily Activity Pain Interference Questionnaire (DAPIQ) on postoperative days 3 and 14. Demographic factors, including sex and body mass index (BMI), were analyzed as potential modifiers.
resultsPatients in the RATS group reported significantly higher VAS scores compared to the UVATS group on postoperative day 3 (5.8 ± 2.0 vs. 3.8 ± 1.6; p < 0.001) and day 14 (2.7 ± 1.1 vs. 2.2 ± 1.1; p = 0.001). Only 17.1% of RATS patients were pain-free by day 14, compared to 34.3% in the UVATS group (p = 0.016). The likelihood of pain-related activity interference was 3.8 times higher in the RATS group. Female sex and lower BMI were associated with worse pain outcomes. VAS scores strongly correlated with DAPIQ results (β = 0.43).
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that RATS is associated with significantly greater postoperative pain and functional limitations than UVATS following lobectomy for lung cancer. These findings underscore the importance of tailored pain management strategies in robotic thoracic surgery, particularly for higher-risk subgroups. Integration of the DAPIQ questionnaire into routine postoperative care may enhance functional recovery monitoring.
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.