ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2026
A modified Cerfolio technique for robotic pulmonary resection: a retrospective comparison with the conventional approach.
Article in General thoracic and cardiovascular 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE(S): The Cerfolio-based technique is widely used for robotic pulmonary resection; however, multiple intercostal ports, particularly a posterior dorsal port, may increase invasiveness. We developed a modified Cerfolio technique (ModC) that integrates the retraction arm into the utility incision to reduce posterior intercostal ports while preserving independent four-arm manipulation.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 72 consecutive robotic pulmonary resections at a single institution (April 2024-November 2025): conventional Cerfolio-based approach (C group, n = 41) or ModC (n = 31; introduced April 2025). Both approaches used four robotic arms, a 30° down scope, and no CO
resultsThe distribution of lobectomy and segmentectomy was similar between groups (p = 0.635). Median console time was 134 min in the C group and 121 min in the ModC group (p = 0.096). Median operative time was 175 versus 156 min (p = 0.051), and median blood loss was 5 versus 3 mL (p = 0.172). Major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III) occurred in 3 patients (7.3%) in the C group and 1 (3.2%) in the ModC group (p = 0.629). No reoperation, readmission within 30 days, or 30-day mortality occurred.
conclusionsModC, a minimal modification of a Cerfolio-based workflow, can be introduced smoothly without compromising short-term outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41973387What 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.