ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Comparative outcomes of uniportal and multiportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery-a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (uVATS) has emerged as a less invasive alternative to conventional multiportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (mVATS) for lung cancer resections. While uVATS is associated with short-term perioperative advantages, uncertainty remains regarding its mid- to long-term oncologic outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares perioperative outcomes and mid-term survival following uVATS versus mVATS for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Four electronic databases were searched from inception to August 2025 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Comparative studies of uVATS and mVATS for NSCLC were included. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes included perioperative outcomes, length of stay, postoperative complications, and early mortality. Data were pooled using random-effects models, and aggregated Kaplan-Meier survival curves were reconstructed. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Results: Twenty-nine studies encompassing 6,708 patients (4,034 uVATS and 2,674 mVATS) were included. Perioperative outcomes favoured uVATS, including a shorter hospital stay (mean difference -0.87 days, P<0.001) and a lower conversion-to-thoracotomy rate [3.3% Conclusions: uVATS is a safe and effective minimally invasive approach for NSCLC when patients are appropriately selected, offering perioperative advantages without compromising RFS. While an association with improved mid-term OS was observed, this finding is hypothesis-generating and requires confirmation in randomized or well-matched long-term studies.
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.