SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) represents 80-85% of lung cancer cases. Anatomical resection remains the cornerstone treatment for early-stage disease. Video-assisted (VATS) and robotic-assisted (RATS) thoracic surgery are alternatives to thoracotomy, though RATS's advantages over VATS remain controversial. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare their perioperative and oncologic outcomes for anatomical resection in early-stage NSCLC. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, LILACS, and Google Scholar from October 8, 2025, updated June 15, 2026, for studies comparing RATS and VATS in adults with early-stage (up to IIA) NSCLC undergoing anatomical resection. Non-anatomical resections, hybrid techniques, and neoadjuvant therapy were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane RoB 2.0. Pooled estimates (odds ratios [OR] or mean differences [MD], 95% CI) were generated in Review Manager; certainty was graded using GRADE. Registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251229273). Twenty-eight studies (3 randomized, 25 observational; 68,349 participants) were included. Survival endpoints could not be pooled due to heterogeneity. RATS showed fewer conversions to thoracotomy (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.50-0.58), shorter hospital stay (MD -0.33 days; -0.61 to -0.06), and greater lymph node retrieval (MD 0.82; 95% CI 0.35-1.30), with no differences in perioperative outcomes. Heterogeneity was substantial and largely unexplained. Oncologic endpoints could not be quantitatively compared. Perioperative advantages favoring RATS were modest, heterogeneous, and of low-to-very-low certainty. Adequately powered randomized trials are needed. No external funding was received.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42684651What 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.