SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
Perioperative safety and efficacy of minimally invasive vs. open thymectomy for large thymomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for non-small cell lung cancer after neoadjuvant immunotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to systematically examine how minimally invasive thymectomy-covering both video-assisted and robotic-assisted methods-compares with open thymectomy in terms of perioperative safety and effectiveness for treating large thymomas. We thoroughly searched several databases for relevant studies, including randomized controlled trials and cohort studies, published up until October 2025. Data on perioperative factors, including surgical duration, blood loss, length of hospitalization, complications, and recurrence rates, were extracted and analyzed using random-effects models in STATA 18. Seven studies involving 12,880 patients were included. open surgery showed significantly more blood loss (WMD = 110.43, 95% CI 105.83-115.03; P < 0.05), longer hospital stays (WMD = 2.04, 95% CI 1.38-2.7; P < 0.05) compared to MIT. No notable difference in surgical duration was observed. Moreover, minimally invasive thymectomy (MIT) was associated with a reduced rate of recurrence after surgery (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.35-0.84; P < 0.05) as well as fewer postoperative complications (OR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.19-0.39; P < 0.05). MIT offers significant advantages over open surgery for large thymomas, including reduced blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and lower rates of complications and recurrence, though operative time was similar. Further large-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings and assess long-term efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41460396What 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.