ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Robotic
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is ongoing equipoise regarding the use of robotics in the field of thoracic surgery. This study compares the safety and length of stay (LOS) outcomes of robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) with the current standard of care, video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), during the initial adoption phase of RATS at a Canadian tertiary care thoracic surgery center. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed lung and mediastinal resections performed via RATS or VATS from 2022 to 2024. Data were extracted from the institutional electronic medical record. Multiple linear regression was performed to assess the impact of surgical approach on LOS, adjusting for relevant covariates. Adverse event rates were compared using Chi-squared tests. Results: A total of 119 RATS and 390 VATS lung resections were analyzed. Median LOS was 3 days [interquartile range (IQR): 1-5 days] for RATS and 2 days (IQR: 1-5 days) for VATS, with no significant difference. Adverse event rates were 29% (35/119) in the RATS group and 39% (153/390) in the VATS group. For mediastinal resections, 41 RATS and 19 VATS cases were included. Median LOS was significantly shorter for RATS [1 day (IQR: 1-2 days)] compared to VATS [2 days (IQR: 2-5 days)] (P<0.05). Adverse event rates were comparable [29% (12/41) for RATS and 26% (5/19) for VATS]. Conclusions: During the early implementation phase of RATS, outcomes were comparable to the established VATS program with respect to safety and LOS. Notably, RATS was associated with a shorter LOS for mediastinal resections.
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.