ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Not all patients need a robot: comparative perioperative outcomes of robotic BABA versus endoscopic CABBA thyroid lobectomy with ipsilateral central lymph node dissection, stratified by body mass index.
Article in Journal of robotic 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Endoscopic thyroid surgery is increasingly used for papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC), but whether robotic bilateral axillo-breast approach (BABA) offers meaningful perioperative advantages over endoscopic contralateral axillo-bilateral-breast approach (CABBA) for unilateral lobectomy with ipsilateral central lymph node dissection (CLND) is unclear. This retrospective cohort study at Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital (2021-2025) aimed to compare outcomes between robotic BABA and endoscopic CABBA after lobectomy plus ipsilateral CLND for PTC, stratified by body mass index (BMI: <24 vs. ≥ 24 kg/m²). Propensity score matching was applied within each BMI stratum. Among 116 non-overweight patients (BMI < 24; median age 33.0 years; 87.1% female), operative time (150.0 vs. 137.5 min; median diff 12.0 min; 95% CI 0 to 24; P = 0.087) and central lymph node yield (7.0 vs. 6.0; median diff - 1.0; 95% CI - 3 to 1; P = 0.435) were comparable between robotic BABA and endoscopic CABBA. Robotic BABA was associated with significantly higher cost (median ¥51,394 vs. ¥22,043; median diff ¥29,351; 95% CI ¥26,100-¥32,600; P < 0.001) and longer incision length (median 4.00 vs. 2.80 cm; median diff - 1.20 cm; 95% CI - 1.20 to - 1.20; P < 0.001). Among 32 overweight/obese patients (BMI ≥ 24; median age 32.0 vs. 31.0 years; 56.3% female), robotic BABA achieved higher central lymph node yield (6.5 vs. 2.5; median diff - 4.0; 95% CI - 8 to - 1; P = 0.003), with comparable operative time (142.5 vs. 140.0 min; median diff - 5.0; 95% CI - 20 to 10; P = 0.595) and hospital stay (3.0 vs. 3.0 days; median diff 0; 95% CI 0 to 1; P = 0.147). Endoscopic CABBA retained cost and cosmetic advantages in both strata (both P < 0.001). In non‑overweight patients undergoing lobectomy with ipsilateral CLND for PTC, robotic BABA provides no perioperative advantage over endoscopic CABBA and is less cost‑effective. In overweight/obese patients, robotic BABA improves central lymph node clearance. These findings support BMI‑based patient selection for robotic thyroidectomy.
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.