Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42507048›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026

Total-port vs. utility-incision robotic pulmonary segmentectomy: a propensity score-based analysis of 418 patients.

Yulong Chen, Hui Chen, Yongkuan Guo, Ran Zhang, Haidi Xu, Jian You

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yulong ChenDepartment of Lung Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, 300060, China.
Hui ChenDepartment of Lung Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, 300060, China.
Yongkuan GuoTianjin Cancer Hospital Airport Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, 300060, China.
Ran ZhangTianjin Cancer Hospital Airport Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, 300060, China.
Haidi XuTianjin Cancer Hospital Airport Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, 300060, China.
Jian YouDepartment of Lung Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, 300060, China. youjian@tmu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9637-8379

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The optimal robotic approach for pulmonary segmentectomy remains debated, and objective standards to verify anatomical precision are lacking. We compared the effectiveness of total-port (TP) versus utility-incision (UI) robotic segmentectomy and validated a 3D-CT metric for assessing surgical completeness. A retrospective propensity score-matched and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was performed on 418 patients undergoing robotic segmentectomy (January 2020-December 2024). Surgical completeness was objectively assessed using postoperative 3D-CT airway reconstruction, blindly reviewed by independent radiologists, to confirm exact transection of the target bronchus. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications and blood loss. Of 418 patients, 203 underwent TP and 215 underwent UI. The TP approach was more frequently utilized for complex segmentectomies (59.6% vs. 38.6%; p < 0.001) and required less preoperative localization (1.0% vs. 17.7%; p < 0.001). Interobserver agreement for the 3D-CT completeness metric was substantial (κ = 0.65). In the IPTW-adjusted analysis, the TP group demonstrated significantly higher verified surgical completeness (95.8% vs. 80.0%; adjusted OR, 5.72; p < 0.001). Additionally, the TP group had lower intraoperative blood loss (45.0 vs. 58.3 mL; adjusted mean difference, -13.28 mL; p < 0.001) and fewer 30-day early complications (3.6% vs. 10.3%; adjusted OR, 0.33; p = 0.01). The TP robotic approach offers superior surgical precision and improved perioperative outcomes compared with the UI approach, particularly for complex segments. Postoperative 3D-CT airway reconstruction serves as a highly reproducible metric for auditing surgical quality in thoracic oncology.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsPneumonectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedBlood Loss, SurgicalFemaleHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedNon-small cell lung cancerPropensity score analysisQuality metricRobot-assisted thoracic surgerySegmentectomyTotal-port approach

Identifiers

PMID42507048
PMCPMC13407943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.