Observational studyJournal of robotic surgery2026
Economic sustainability of a newly established robotic thoracic surgery programme in a public healthcare system: early experience from a high-volume latin American centre.
Observational study 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) has emerged as an important advancement in minimally invasive thoracic surgery; however, concerns regarding its economic impact continue to limit its broad adoption. We evaluated the early clinical outcomes and economic performance of a newly established robotic thoracic surgery programme in a tertiary referral centre in Mexico. A retrospective observational study was conducted, including consecutive patients undergoing RATS between October 2023 and June 2024. Clinical outcomes of the robotic cohort were analysed descriptively. Economic comparisons with conventional thoracic surgery were performed using institutional administrative costing data. A total of 116 patients underwent RATS. Median postoperative hospital stay was 5 (2-10) days, with a 90-day mortality of 1.7%. Economic performance differed according to procedure. Mediastinal tumour resection demonstrated lower overall institutional costs than conventional surgery, representing a dominant economic strategy. Thymectomy and bronchoplasty achieved favourable cost-effectiveness profiles below the two-times gross domestic product per capita willingness-to-pay threshold, whereas bullectomy remained cost-effective only under the three-times threshold. The implementation of a robotic thoracic surgery programme within a public healthcare institution was clinically feasible and demonstrated favourable economic performance in selected thoracic procedures. The economic sustainability of robotic thoracic surgery appears to be procedure-specific and may be facilitated by innovative implementation strategies and appropriate case selection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42831947What 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.