ArticleSurgery today2026
Initial experience with the Saroa surgical system for early-stage lung cancer: a comparative study with the da Vinci surgical system.
Article in Surgery today, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to report the initial clinical experience with the Saroa™ surgical system (Riverfield Inc., Tokyo, Japan) and to compare perioperative outcomes with the da Vinci surgical system in early-stage lung cancer surgery.
methodsA retrospective evaluation was conducted on patients who underwent robotic anatomical lung resection for pathological stage 0-I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at our institution between July 2023 and May 2025, utilizing either the Saroa or da Vinci® Xi Surgical System. Demographic data, comorbidities, operative variables, complications, and postoperative courses were compared between the groups.
resultsA total of 60 patients were included in the study (Saroa, n = 30; da Vinci, n = 30). Patients in the Saroa group were older (74.6 vs. 71.2 years, p = 0.022). The median operative time (202 vs. 191 min, p = 0.524), console time (142 vs. 141.5 min, p = 0.505), and blood loss (50 vs. 40 mL, p = 0.994) did not differ significantly. The incidence of postoperative complications was similar (23.3% vs. 20.0%, p = 1.000). The median postoperative hospital stay was 7 vs. 8 days (p = 0.572).
conclusionSaroa demonstrated feasibility and perioperative safety comparable to that of da Vinci in early stage lung cancer surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42479182What 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.