Observational studyThe Journal of surgical research2026
Diagnostic Outcomes of Robotic Bronchoscopy in a Multidisciplinary, Multi-hospital Lung Nodule Program.
Observational study in The Journal of surgical research, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIn many centers, robotic bronchoscopy has become the standard approach for diagnosis of lung lesions. Smaller series have demonstrated improvements in diagnostic accuracy. The aim of our study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of robotic bronchoscopy across multiple users in multiple hospitals within a single health system with the largest patient cohort in the literature to date.
methodsAll patients with a suspicious intraparenchymal lung lesion that was biopsied using the Monarch robotic bronchoscope by a pulmonologist or thoracic surgeon at a multi-site, academic institution from August 2018 to April 2023 were included. Data were collected prospectively, and patients were followed postprocedure from at least 1 and up to 5 y. Diagnostic accuracy was determined by comparing Monarch-acquired samples to final known pathology. True negative (benign) diagnoses were confirmed with either resolution or stability on computed tomography scan at one-year post-procedure.
resultsOver the five-year period, 1084 lesions were biopsied via robotic bronchoscopy (Monarch) by 16 practitioners. Lesions were primarily solid (84%) and peripherally located (62.0%), with a median size at 25 mm (17-37). At median follow-up of 1.07 (interquartile range 0.58-1.67) years, diagnostic accuracy was 82.7% (80.1-85.2). In univariate analysis, larger lesion size (P < 0.001), peripheral location (P < 0.001), bronchus sign on computed tomography scan (P < 0.001), intraoperative direct endobronchial visualization (P < 0.001), and use of radial endobronchial ultrasound (P < 0.001) were all associated with successful diagnosis. Clinically significant pneumothoraces (requiring chest tube) were low at 3% (n = 33).
conclusionsDiagnostic accuracy from this large cohort, cross-specialty analysis of robotic bronchoscopy among multiple operators was 82.7%. Robotic bronchoscopy can be successfully employed as the initial and preferred sampling methodology for solid lung lesions given acceptable diagnostic performance and low complication rates in this long-term assessment of outcomes.
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.