SynthesisGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2026
Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery versus video-assisted thoracic surgery for patients undergoing lung resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted, laparoscopic or thoracoscopic, and open surgery across 13 cancer operations: a single-institution cohort of 36,208 cases.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- RoboticJournal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Robotic-Assisted Thoracic Surgery in the Immunotherapy Era: Navigating Altered Anatomy, Oncologic Precision, and the Future of Integrated Platforms.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Robotic vs thoracoscopic vs open lobectomy and segmentectomy for lung cancer: a multicenter cohort study in the ATS of Milan.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- RoboticJournal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Clinical research advances in thoracic surgery and thoracic oncology in 2025: a panoramic narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Comparative analysis of short-term outcomes, inflammatory markers, and complications in robotic-assistedJournal of thoracic disease · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive techniques have mostly replaced open thoracotomy for lung resection, yet their comparative benefits remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate clinical outcomes associated with robot-assisted (RATS) and video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS).
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RATS to VATS in patients undergoing lung resection. Primary outcomes were conversion to thoracotomy and overall complications. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) were used for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively, considering as significant p-values < 0.05. Trial sequential analysis was also conducted.
resultsWe included five RCTs comprising 712 patients, of whom 338 (47.5%) underwent RATS, and 374 (52.5%) underwent VATS. No differences were found between groups in conversion to thoracotomy (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.36-1.20; p = 0.17) and overall complications (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.69-1.21; p = 0.49). RATS presented a higher number of lymph node stations resected (p < 0.00001) and a shorter length of hospital stay after performing sensitivity analysis (p < 0.00001). There were no differences between RATS and VATS in any of the other secondary outcomes.
conclusionOur study results reassure the safety and potential benefits associated with RATS lung resections, demonstrating a significantly higher number of lymph node stations resected and a possible trend toward shorter hospital stays, with similar rates of complications and conversion in comparison to VATS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41037231What 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.