ReviewJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2026
Current state of evidence for RATS lobectomy for NSCLC.
Review 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) has progressively been integrated into minimally invasive strategies for pulmonary lobectomy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) remains the most established minimally invasive approach, the clinical relevance and added value of robotic platforms continue to be debated.
methodsThis narrative review critically examines the existing literature on robot-assisted lobectomy for NSCLC. Emphasis is placed on comparative data evaluating oncological outcomes, lymph node assessment, perioperative results, technical considerations, learning curve, and economic implications in relation to VATS and open surgery.
resultsAvailable evidence, predominantly derived from retrospective studies and large database analyses, indicates that RATS lobectomy is feasible and safe when performed in experienced centers. Long-term oncological outcomes, including overall and disease-free survival, appear broadly comparable across surgical approaches. While some studies suggest that robotic assistance may facilitate more extensive lymph node assessment, the clinical significance of these findings remains uncertain. Perioperative outcomes such as conversion rates, postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay are generally similar between RATS and VATS. Higher procedural costs associated with robotic platforms remain a consistent concern, with cost-effectiveness strongly influenced by institutional volume and resource allocation.
conclusionsCurrent evidence supports RATS lobectomy as a valid minimally invasive option for selected patients with NSCLC, offering outcomes comparable to those of established techniques. Despite clear technical advantages, definitive clinical superiority has not been demonstrated, highlighting the need for further prospective studies and standardized outcome reporting.
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.