ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Patient experiences in trials of minimally invasive thoracic surgery: A mixed-methods study.
Article 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
backgroundMinimally invasive thoracic surgery, including robotic-assisted and video-assisted approaches, is increasingly used to treat lung cancer. While technical outcomes are well documented, patient experiences within clinical trials remain under-explored.
objectiveTo evaluate patient experiences of clinical trial participation involving advanced surgical modalities for lung cancer.
methodsThis two-site, mixed-methods study evaluated patient perceptions of participation in the DURATION (ctDNA monitoring) and VGT-309 (fluorescent imaging) trials. Twenty-six participants completed quantitative surveys assessing pre-trial expectations, experiences, and collaboration with research teams. Sixteen participants completed semi-structured interviews, analyzed using thematic analysis.
resultsTwenty-six participants completed surveys and sixteen completed interviews. Motivations for enrollment included advancing science (100%), altruism (80.8%), and personal benefit (61.5%). Satisfaction was universally high, with participants reporting positive surgical experiences, supportive staff interactions, and minimal procedural burden. Most participants (88.5%) expressed willingness to participate in future trials, and 96.2% would recommend trial involvement to others. Qualitative analysis identified seven domains characterizing patient experiences throughout the trial process: motivations for enrollment, communication from the trials team, influences on surgical decision-making, surgical expectations, postoperative care, challenges to participation, and overall experience. Challenges such as perioperative anxiety and logistical demands were minor and did not detract from overall satisfaction. Overall, participants described the trial experience as seamless and personally meaningful.
conclusionPatients undergoing robotic-assisted or video-assisted thoracic surgery within clinical trials report overwhelmingly positive experiences. The integration of patient-centered communication and advanced technology creates a seamless perioperative journey. Clinicians should not hesitate to enroll appropriate patients in trials featuring surgical innovations.
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.