ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2026
Comparative perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic mediastinal tumor resection: a propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) versus video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for mediastinal tumor resection in a propensity score-matched cohort.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed patients undergoing minimally invasive mediastinal tumor resection between January 2022 and November 2025. Patients were categorized into RATS and VATS groups. Propensity score matching balanced baseline characteristics including age, gender, body mass index, ASA score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, tumor size, tumor location, pathology, and prior thoracic surgery history. The primary outcome was postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ II. Secondary outcomes included operative time, blood loss, chest tube duration, hospital stay, costs, and pain scores.
resultsAfter matching, 102 patients (51 per group) were included. RATS was associated with significantly less intraoperative blood loss [median difference - 15 mL (95% CI: - 20 to - 10), P < 0.001], shorter chest tube duration [median difference - 1 day (95% CI: - 1.7 to - 0.3), P = 0.003], and shorter hospital stay [median difference - 1 day (95% CI: - 1.7 to - 0.1), P = 0.009]. Total costs were higher in the RATS group [median difference +$4,400 (95% CI: $3,800-$5,000), P < 0.001]. Operative time, postoperative pain scores, and complication rates (grade ≥ II: 9.8% vs. 13.7%, P = 0.55) were comparable between groups. Using an alternative definition (grade ≥ III), complications occurred in 3.9% (RATS) vs. 5.9% (VATS), P = 0.65.
conclusionsFor mediastinal tumor resection, RATS offers modest perioperative benefits including reduced blood loss and shorter recovery times compared to VATS, but at substantially higher cost and without a reduction in major complications. RATS is a feasible and safe minimally invasive alternative, but its advantages over VATS are small and must be weighed against economic considerations. Routine adoption is not supported by the current evidence; selection should be individualized.
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.