SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robot-assisted versus video-assisted surgery for early functional recovery in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-based matching studies.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the results of studies adjusted by propensity score to evaluate surgical quality and perioperative results between robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) in patients undergoing lobectomy due to non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We searched different databases such as Embase, Pub Med, Cochrane library to obtain different related literatures that are retrievable until November 2025. We relied on Review Manager Computer Software so that we could compare the varying parameters. The trial is registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251229171). Seven eligible articles were selected, including four prospective trials and three retrospective studies, involving a total 829 patients, were included. The meta-analysis results suggested that RATS may present potential advantages over VATS regarding drained fluid quantity (MD − 29.83; 95% CI: −50.42 to − 9.23; P = 0.005), duration of hospital stay (MD − 0.14; 95% CI: −0.20 to − 0.07; P = 0.0001), lymph node dissection extent (MD 0.42; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.66; P = 0.0005), and lower conversion to thoracotomy rates, which was achieved by the RATS approach (OR 0.18; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.69; P = 0.01). However, the results failed to show any difference between the two systems regarding operation time, chest drainage duration, intraoperative bleeding, rates of complications, or air leakage rates. This meta-analysis and systematic review based on propensity score matching further enriches the existing evidence on RATS versus VATS for NSCLC. The findings show that RATS may hold certain advantages in some perioperative outcomes and surgical safety indicators. However, due to the high heterogeneity observed in some outcomes, clinical decision-making should involve a comprehensive evaluation based on the actual resource allocation of the hospital, the surgeon’s proficiency, cost-effectiveness, and individual patient factors, rather than relying solely on presumed technical superiority. Confirmation of this data is required by well-designed prospective, multicenter, randomized studies involving a greater number of patients, as well as longer-term follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41770415What 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.