ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
Robotic versus video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for pathological stage II-IIIB non-small cell lung cancer: evaluation of perioperative and survival outcomes.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current state of evidence for RATS lobectomy for NSCLC.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Review
- Microbubble fibrin sealant application technique for prolonged air leak after anatomical lung resection: a retrospective comparative study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Long-Term Oncological Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgery in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Updated Review.Cancers · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Minimally invasive surgery, including video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS), has been widely performed for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Several studies have reported the clinical benefits of RATS for early-stage NSCLC. However, the application of RATS in the more advanced stage NSCLC remains controversial. This retrospective study aimed to compare the perioperative and survival outcomes of patients with pathological stage II-IIIB NSCLC who underwent lobectomy by VATS or RATS. Methods: This retrospective study identified patients with pathological stage II-IIIB NSCLC who underwent lobectomy via VATS or RATS at Nagoya City University Hospital between 2017 and 2023. Perioperative outcomes, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Results: In total, 145 patients (VATS, n=109; RATS, n=36) were included. After propensity score matching (PSM), there were 62 patients in the VATS group and 31 patients in the RATS group. In the PSM cohort analysis, blood loss was lower [109 mL, interquartile range (IQR), 67-168 Conclusions: Even in cases of pathological stage II-IIIB NSCLC, RATS is feasible and is associated with comparable survival and perioperative outcomes to VATS. Additional multicenter studies are needed to ensure the representativeness of this study.
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.