ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic vs. bedside staplers in robotic lung resection: a real-world cohort study.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comparative studies of stapler strategy within robotic lung resection remain limited, particularly beyond lobectomy and with contemporary staplers. This study evaluated clinical and economic outcomes associated with robotic versus bedside staplers in robotic lung resections. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Premier Healthcare Database (2019-2023), including adults who underwent robotic lobectomy or sublobar resection. Patients were classified into robotic stapler and bedside stapler groups. Overlap weighting (OW), a propensity score weighting method targeting the average treatment effect in the overlap population (ATO), was applied to balance measured baseline characteristics. The prespecified primary outcome was postoperative air leak. Secondary outcomes included other postoperative complications, conversion to thoracotomy, operative time, length of stay (LOS), and hospital costs during the index hospitalization and 30-day perioperative period. Among 15,140 patients, robotic staplers were associated with lower air leak (10.9% vs. 15.2%), pneumothorax (8.5% vs. 11.4%), and pneumonia (1.1% vs. 2.8%), as well as lower conversion (0.4% vs. 4.7%), transfusion (1.0% vs. 1.8%), shorter operative time (209 vs. 225 min), and length of stay (3.8 vs. 5.4 days) (all p < 0.05). Index hospitalization cost was lower with robotic staplers (USD 25,887 vs. 27,432; Δ - 1,545), with similar findings for 30-day perioperative cost. In the sensitivity analysis including mixed-use cases, associations remained directionally consistent, including lower air leak (11.3% vs. 15.3%), conversion (0.8% vs. 4.6%), and total hospital cost (USD 26,370 vs. 27,365). In robotic lung resections, robotic staplers were associated with fewer complications and conversions, shorter operative time and LOS, and lower index and 30-day hospital costs. These findings were consistent in a sensitivity analysis including mixed-use cases but should be interpreted cautiously because residual confounding cannot be excluded.
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.