ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2026
Impact of modern minimally invasive approaches on pulmonary resection outcomes: a narrative review.
Review 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Anatomic pulmonary resection remains the gold standard for resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This review evaluates the evolution, intraoperative outcomes, clinical efficiency, oncological adequacy, and cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive thoracic surgery (MITS) relative to traditional open thoracotomy. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Wiley Library for studies published through early 2026, prioritizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large-scale registry analyses comparing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RVATS), and open thoracotomy. Key Content and Findings: MITS (comprising VATS and RVATS) is associated with significantly lower perioperative mortality, reduced postoperative pain, shorter hospital stays, and fewer complications compared to open thoracotomy. While intraoperative conversion remains a risk, robotic platforms exhibit lower conversion rates than VATS in several large series. Oncologically, all three modalities provide equivalent nodal upstaging and disease-free survival (DFS), provided oncological principles are rigorously maintained. While robotic surgery incurs higher procedural costs, these are partially mitigated by reduced postoperative resource utilization. Conclusions: MITS has become the standard of care for early-stage NSCLC. Recent data suggest that robotic platforms may offer advantages in technical precision and lower conversion rates, although VATS remains a highly cost-effective and efficacious approach. Future innovations in single-port robotics continue to advance the reduction of surgical trauma.
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.