ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Transitioning from video-assisted to robotic-assisted anatomical pulmonary resection: outcomes from 340 cases in an Australian centre.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) is emerging as a technically advanced alternative to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for anatomical pulmonary resection. While its potential benefits include enhanced visualisation and precision, real-world outcome data remain limited-particularly within the Australian healthcare setting. This study evaluates short-term clinical and oncologic outcomes during the transition from VATS to RATS in a single-centre thoracic surgery practice. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 340 consecutive thoracoscopic anatomical lung resections (segmentectomy, lobectomy, or pneumonectomy) performed by a single surgeon between July 2012 and February 2025 in Geelong, Australia. Short-term outcomes from the first 170 patients treated with RATS during the surgeon's initial robotic experience were compared with those of a historical cohort of 170 VATS patients. Results: Baseline demographics were similar, although the RATS group included a higher proportion of obese patients and segmentectomies. Both groups demonstrated low complication and mortality rates. RATS was associated with significantly higher lymph node yield (mean 11 vs 8 nodes, p<0.001) and shorter postoperative pleural drainage duration (2.2 vs 3.8 days, p<0.001). Hospital length of stay was reduced by more than two days in the RATS group (4.4 vs 6.4 days, p<0.001). Operative time and rates of conversion, upstaging, and readmission were comparable between groups. Conclusion: RATS was safely introduced without increased operative time or complication rates and was associated with improved lymphadenectomy and enhanced postoperative recovery. As the largest Australian comparison of RATS and VATS to date, these findings support the integration of robotic pulmonary resection into standard thoracic surgical practice.
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.