ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2026
Comparison of thoracotomy conversion rates and causes between VATS and RATS for primary lung cancer: a retrospective cohort study.
Article 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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- How Does a Robotic Lung Resection Programme Evolve? Learning Curve and Conversion Analysis of the Versius CMR Surgical System.Cancers · 2026Article
- RoboticJournal 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn minimally invasive surgeries such as video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) and robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS), unexpected complications may necessitate conversion to thoracotomy. This study aimed to compare the rates, causes, and implications of conversion to thoracotomy between VATS and RATS.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed data from 1135 patients who underwent anatomical lung resection for primary lung cancer via VATS (n = 580) or RATS (n = 555) from 2011 to 2024. Conversion causes were categorized using the Vascular, Anatomy, Lymph node, Technical (VALT) system. Perioperative outcomes and independent predictors of conversion were analyzed via multivariate logistic regression.
resultsThe overall conversion rate was significantly lower in the RATS group than in the VATS group (2.0% vs. 7.8%, p < 0.001). RATS was associated with fewer anatomical (0.9% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.010) and lymph node-related (0.2% vs. 2.6%, p < 0.001), with no significant difference in vascular-related conversions (0.9% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.142). Multivariate analysis identified age ≥ 75 year, clinical T2-4, and N1-2 stage as independent risk factors, while RATS use was protective. Emergency conversions were uncommon in both groups, whereas RATS appeared advantageous in technically demanding settings.
conclusionsRATS significantly reduces the risk of conversion, particularly in anatomically or nodally complex cases, without increasing vascular complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41186879What 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.