ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Multicenter study comparing outcomes of robotic versus video-assisted thoracoscopic resection of non-small cell lung cancer following neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe sought to compare outcomes of robotic-assisted (RATS) and video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) resection of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy.
methodsA retrospective database of patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy followed by resection for NSCLC after between 2019 and 2025 at six centers in the US, France and Germany was analyzed. Patients undergoing RATS and VATS were included. Patient selection, extent of resection, pathologic and short-term outcomes were compared by operative approach. Inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) based on propensity scores were applied to balance the groups for outcome comparisons.
resultsA total of 276 patients were included, of which 243 (88.0%) were approached by RATS and 33 (12.0%) VATS. Baseline characteristics were similar in both cohorts. Bronchoplasty (n = 8) or angioplasty (n = 6) were performed only using RATS. Conversion to thoracotomy was significantly higher with VATS (27.3% vs. 5.8%, p < 0.001). Oncologic outcomes, including R0 resection, lymph node harvest, major pathologic response, and pathologic complete response, were comparable. Overall complications were similar (33.3% vs. 35.8%, p = 0.78), but VATS had higher rates of major complications (21.2% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.01), respiratory failure (12.1% vs. 3.7%, p = 0.03), and unplanned reoperation (12.1% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.001). IPTW-adjusted analyses confirmed lower conversion (26.1% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.005) and major complication rates (22.7% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.01) with RATS, with no differences in overall complications (34.5% vs. 35.8%, p = 0.91) or length of stay (5.0 vs. 4.6 days, p = 0.46).
conclusionsBoth RATS and VATS are feasible approaches for NSCLC resection following neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy and achieve comparable oncologic outcomes. However, RATS was associated with substantially lower conversion to thoracotomy and fewer major postoperative complications, while maintaining equivalent resection quality. These findings support an expanded role for robotic-assisted resection in the management of appropriately selected patients after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy.
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.