ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2026
Advancing minimally invasive thoracic surgery: comparative insights into uniportal and multiportal robotic approaches for non-small cell lung cancer.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Surgical technical aspects of uniportal hybrid RATS and biportal pure RATS using a subcostal port.Journal of visualized surgery · 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
backgroundMultiportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (mRATS) is the standard technique for which robotic systems were originally designed, while uniportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (uRATS) combines robotic precision with a single-incision approach. This study provides the first unicentric comparison, evaluating whether uRATS is non-inferior in postoperative recovery and safety.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single center and included 402 patients undergoing RATS anatomical pulmonary resections for resectable NSCLC (February 2019-August 2024). Inverse probability weighting was applied to balance baseline characteristics, between uRATS (n = 58) and mRATS (n = 344). PRIMARY ENDPOINT: postoperative complications. Secondary endpoints: operative times, chest drainage duration and hospital stay.
resultsComplication rates were comparable (uRATS: 39.7%, mRATS: 44.5%, p = 0.588), with prolonged air leak (PAL) being the most frequent (34.0% vs. 34.5%, p = 1.000). Operative times were similar (median 195 vs. 190 min, p > 0.05). Recovery metrics, including chest drainage duration (median: 4 days) and hospital stay (4-5 days), showed no significant differences. After adjustment for TNM stage and functional variables, FEV1% emerged as the main predictor of recovery outcomes.
conclusionIn this unicentric experience, uRATS and mRATS showed comparable short-term safety and recovery outcomes. uRATS appears to be a feasible alternative, particularly for surgeons familiar with uniportal techniques. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings and assess long-term oncological outcomes and patient-centered metrics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41264191What 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.