ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic-assisted pulmonary resection with a periareolar assistant port: learning curve and propensity-matched comparison with the conventional-portal approach.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePeriareolar incisions improve cosmesis in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, but their use as an assistant port in robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) has not been formally described. We characterized the learning curve of this approach and compared perioperative outcomes with conventional-portal RATS.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 117 consecutive malignant RATS resections performed with a periareolar assistant port (December 2025-June 2026) and 285 conventional-portal cases (January 2024-September 2025) at a single center. Learning curve analysis used cumulative sum analysis, moving-average smoothing, and case-sequence quartile comparison. Outcomes were compared using 1:1 propensity-score matching (100 pairs) and multivariable regression.
resultsNo monotonic improvement in unadjusted operative time was detected (r = 0.099, P = 0.287), and operative time did not differ between matched groups (80.0 vs. 75.0 min, P = 0.503). The periareolar approach had less blood loss (20.0 vs. 30.0 mL, P < 0.001) but fewer lymph node stations (6.0 vs. 7.0, P < 0.001) and nodes dissected (10.0 vs. 12.5, P = 0.025), and a higher complication rate (15.0% vs. 0.0%, P < 0.001), driven mainly by prolonged air leak. Multivariable regression confirmed these findings (lymph node stations: β = -0.824, P < 0.001; complications: OR = 6.65, P < 0.001). No conversions or positive margins occurred.
conclusionsRATS with a periareolar assistant port was technically feasible; no monotonic improvement in unadjusted operative time was detected across the case series, and operative time was comparable to the conventional approach. However, comparative safety and oncologic adequacy remain uncertain given the higher complication rate and lower lymph-node yield observed, warranting prospective, randomized, multicenter validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42541518What 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.