Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41665783›Full record

Observational studyAnnals of surgical oncology2026

Long-Term Patient-Reported Outcomes after Multiport Robot-Assisted Surgery versus Video-Assisted Surgery for Lung Cancer: An Observational Cohort Study.

Xing Wei, Hongfan Yu, Wei Dai, Lin Huang, Yangjun Liu, Cheng Lei, Ding Yang, Kunpeng Zhang, Jia Liao, Yaqin Wang and 9 more

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Annals of surgical oncology, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. RoboticJournal of thoracic disease · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Xing Wei *Department of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3035-5633
Hongfan Yu *Department of Pharmacy, The First Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3167-1491
Wei Dai *Department of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1650-1590
Lin HuangDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6768-1141
Yangjun LiuDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3540-5361
Cheng LeiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1311-515X
Ding YangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6329-8962
Kunpeng ZhangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9541-7092
Jia LiaoDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0385-8032
Yaqin WangOutpatient Department, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4373-7435
Bo TianDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1283-3045
Xi LuoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Nursing Department, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9193-3193
Shaohua XieDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7109-6829
Yadi ZhangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-9182-3797
Xiaoqin LiuDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-9725-0750
Wei XuSchool of Public Health, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7769-9601
Bin HuDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China. hubin@scszlyy.org.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7609-8222
Qiang LiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China. liqiang@sichuancancer.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1841-4132
Qiuling ShiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China. qshi@cqmu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0660-3809

Funding

National Science and Technology Major Project 2022YFE0133100Sichuan Science and Technology Program 2023YFQ0057
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and perioperative clinical outcomes during 1 year post surgery between robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), including multiportal (M-VATS) and uniportal (U-VATS) approaches, in patients with lung cancer.

methodsData from a prospective cohort study (CN-PRO-Lung3) were analyzed, and patients with primary lung cancer who underwent RATS or VATS were included. Primary outcomes were postoperative symptoms and daily functioning assessed using the Perioperative Symptom Assessment (PSA)-Lung, and exploratory outcomes included health-related quality of life (HRQoL) based on the Five-Level EuroQol Five-Dimensional Questionnaire and other clinical outcomes. Propensity score matching (PSM) was adjusted for baseline differences.

resultsAfter the PSM of 687 patients, 91 patients were matched between RATS and M-VATS and 119 between RATS and U-VATS. Compared with those undergoing M-VATS, patients undergoing RATS reported lower rates of moderate-to-severe fatigue (P = 0.017) and disturbed sleep (P = 0.049) in the hospital. Additionally, RATS demonstrated better clinical outcomes, including more lymph-node dissections (P < 0.001), less blood loss (P < 0.001), shorter operative time (P < 0.001), and reduced hospital stays (P < 0.001) than M-VATS but incurred higher costs (P < 0.001). Compared with those undergoing U-VATS, patients undergoing RATS reported higher rates of moderate-to-severe cough (P = 0.007) and slower initial HRQoL recovery after discharge.

conclusionsCompared with M-VATS, RATS offers perioperative advantages, including reduced symptoms and better clinical outcomes, but at higher costs. Compared with U-VATS, RATS enhanced lymph-node dissection rates but increased postoperative cough and slowed HRQoL recovery. This study highlights the importance of incorporating PROs into surgical decision-making. Clinical registration ChiCTR2000033016 ( https://www.chictr.org.cn/searchprojEN.html ).

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPneumonectomyPostoperative ComplicationsQuality of LifeRobotic Surgical ProceduresThoracic Surgery, Video-AssistedAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisProspective StudiesHealth-related quality of life (HRQoL)Lung cancerPatient-reported outcomes (PROs)Perioperative outcomesRobot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS)Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS)

Identifiers

PMID41665783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.