SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic-assisted lung transplantation: a systematic review of early outcomes in minimally invasive transplant surgery.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lung transplantation is conventionally performed through clamshell thoracosternotomy or sternotomy, approaches associated with pain, impaired wound healing, and chronic neuralgia. Robotic assistance has reached transplantation only recently. We systematically reviewed the clinical experience with robotic-assisted lung transplantation. Following PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to 15 August 2026, with trial registries, conference abstracts, and Chinese-language sources, without language restriction. Human robotic lung transplant reports with at least one clinical outcome were eligible. Because only one comparative cohort existed, synthesis was narrative; no meta-analysis was performed. Certainty was graded by outcome. PROSPERO: CRD420261479535. Out of 393 database records and 7 from other methods, six reports from five reporting centers (27 unique recipients) were included. No randomized trial or prior full-length systematic review was identified. In the only comparative cohort (robotic n = 21 vs. direct-vision minimally invasive n = 90), one-year survival was 95.0% versus 95.5% (log-rank P = 0.84) and grade-3 primary graft dysfunction at 72 h 4.8% versus 8.9% (odds ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.06-4.34), despite longer ischemic times (486 vs. 408 min; P = 0.02). Every robotic versus direct-vision confidence interval included unity. Certainty was very low for all outcomes. Robotic lung transplantation is technically feasible across five reporting centers. Comparative evidence rests on one clinically selected, non-randomized cohort in which no difference was statistically detectable; this establishes neither equivalence nor absence of harm. Multicenter prospective evaluation with standardized outcomes is required.Registration: The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420261479535).
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.