ArticleBMC surgery2025
Minimally invasive segmentectomy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a comparative analysis of robotic and thoracoscopic approaches.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveAnatomical segmentectomy is a lung-sparing surgical option for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), especially in patients with small peripheral tumors or reduced pulmonary reserve. With increased detection via low-dose CT screening, the demand for segmentectomy is rising. This retrospective cohort study compared short-term outcomes, complications, and costs between robot-assisted segmentectomy (RAS) and video-assisted segmentectomy (VAS) in NSCLC patients.
methodsA sum of 603 patients with pathologically confirmed NSCLC who underwent segmentectomy at Xiangya Hospital between May 2020 and June 2024 were included: RAS (n = 302), VAS (n = 301). Both groups were comparable in demographics and baseline characteristics. Intraoperative variables, postoperative recovery indicators, lung function (pre- and postoperative), hemoglobin levels, arterial blood gases, and total cost were analyzed. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsNo 30-day mortality occurred in either group. RAS showed significantly shorter operation time (89.53 ± 26.60 min vs. 107.80 ± 43.92 min, p < 0.0001), faster intersegmental plane identification (6.10 ± 1.02 min vs. 14.07 ± 2.69 min, p < 0.0001), less blood loss (47.3 ± 39.7 ml vs. 57.3 ± 64.7 ml, p < 0.022), shorter hospital stay (7.9 ± 2.0 vs. 8.5 ± 3.6 days, p < 0.013), chest tube duration (3.3 ± 1.1 vs. 3.6 ± 1.3 days, p < 0.003), and POD1 drainage (257.6 ± 100.4 vs. 282.0 ± 118.4 ml, p < 0.006). RAS had fewer conversions (0.66% vs. 1.3%) and higher lymph node sampling (4.9 ± 0.1 vs. 4.1 ± 0.8, p < 0.0001). Minor (13.57% vs. 19.93%, p < 0.0387) and major (9.60% vs. 12.0%, p < 0.035) complications, postoperative pain (1.65% vs. 7.98%, p < 0.0002), cough, opioid (20% vs. 58%) and antitussive use (20% vs. 46.2%) were lower in RAS. Lung function and ABG values and haemoglobin were statistically similar. Total cost was significantly higher in RAS (9422.3 ± 3183.0 vs. 5741.4 ± 1223.2 USD, p < 0.0001).
conclusionRAS offers better perioperative outcomes and lower morbidity than VAS but at significantly higher cost, requiring further strategies for cost optimization.
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.