ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Robotic
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The comparative efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RATS and VATS for NSCLC. Databases were searched from inception to February 2026. The primary outcomes included surgical safety and complications. Secondary outcomes encompassed perioperative clinical metrics, oncological efficacy, and cost-effectiveness. Results: Five RCTs (7 publications) involving 712 patients were included. RATS was associated with significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss [mean differences (MD) =-62.3 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI): -119.3 to -5.3, P=0.03] and a higher number of lymph nodes retrieved (MD =2.56, 95% CI: 0.53 to 4.58, P=0.01). Postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the RATS group (MD =-0.33, 95% CI: -0.36 to -0.31, P<0.001). However, RATS incurred significantly higher hospitalization costs, driven by indirect equipment expenses. No significant differences were observed regarding conversion to thoracotomy [risk ratio (RR) =0.67, P=0.19], overall complications (RR =0.91, P=0.52), operative time (MD =4.92 min, P=0.45), or long-term survival [3-year overall survival (OS) RR =1.02, P=0.38]. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that RATS is a safe and effective alternative to VATS. While RATS demonstrates technical advantages in specific metrics, it shows comparable major clinical outcomes to VATS. However, the higher economic burden associated with robotic technology remains a significant consideration.
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.