ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Comparison of open, thoracoscopic, and robotic approaches for pediatric mediastinal tumor resection.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 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.
- Tumor-to-thoracic height and width ratios as adjunct imaging markers for preoperative risk stratification in minimally invasive surgery for pediatric mediastinal masses.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- Comparative perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic mediastinal tumor resection: a propensity score-matched analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- A review of robotic-assisted mediastinal surgery in the pediatric population.Mediastinum (Hong Kong, China) · 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
This study compared perioperative outcomes among robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS), video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), and open thoracotomy (OT) in pediatric patients with mediastinal tumors, and evaluated the technical advantages and economic implications of RATS. Clinical data of 184 children who underwent mediastinal tumor resection at our institution between December 2014 and January 2025 were retrospectively analyzed. Baseline characteristics, operative parameters, and perioperative outcomes were compared across the three surgical approaches. Multivariate regression was performed to identify independent predictors of postoperative hospital stay. All procedures were completed successfully, with no perioperative mortality. Baseline demographics were comparable among the groups. Both RATS and VATS resulted in significantly shorter chest drainage duration and hospital stay than OT. Intraoperative blood loss was lower in minimally invasive groups, with the least blood loss and postoperative analgesic requirement observed in the RATS. The RATS group, however, incurred the highest total hospitalization costs, reflecting robotic system and disposable instrument expenses. Multivariate analysis identified chest drainage duration and surgical approach as significant predictors of hospital stay. Longer operative duration was modestly associated with postoperative complications, while older age predicted ICU admission. RATS was associated with superior short‑term perioperative outcomes, including reduced blood loss, shorter drainage duration and hospitalization, and lower postoperative analgesic use, compared with VATS and OT in children with mediastinal tumors. Despite these advantages, the higher procedural costs remain a key limitation. RATS represents a promising minimally invasive alternative for appropriately selected pediatric patients, warranting further validation through multicenter prospective studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41372701What 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.