ArticleJTCVS open2026
Robotic-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic enucleation for esophageal leiomyoma: A propensity-weighted retrospective cohort study.
Article in JTCVS open, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The study objective was to compare recovery, operative outcomes, and direct in-hospital costs between robotic-assisted thoracic surgery and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for minimally invasive enucleation of esophageal leiomyoma. Methods: This was a single-center retrospective cohort (January 2017 to September 2025). The primary end point was postoperative length of stay. Adjusted comparisons used stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting from a prespecified propensity score model. Results: Sixty-one patients were included (23 robotic-assisted; 38 video-assisted). In propensity-weighted analyses (robotic-assisted thoracic surgery - video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery), robotic-assisted thoracic surgery was associated with shorter postoperative length of stay (-0.85 days [-1.53 to -0.16]; Conclusions: In this small single-center cohort, robotic-assisted thoracic surgery was associated with shorter selected recovery milestones at higher direct in-hospital cost. These hypothesis-generating findings describe local trade-offs rather than definitive evidence of platform superiority or subgroup selection.
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.