ReviewCancers2026
From Thoracotomy to Robotic Platforms in Thoracic Surgery: Technical Evolution, Simulation-Based Training, and Surgical Outcomes.
Review in Cancers, 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
Abstract
Thoracic surgery has progressively moved from open thoracotomy to video-assisted and robot-assisted approaches, reducing access-related trauma while changing the technical environment in which pulmonary resections are performed and taught. This narrative review examines the clinical evolution of open, video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS), and robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS), with particular attention to the evidence supporting their perioperative and oncological outcomes, the learning curves associated with minimally invasive surgery, and the role of simulation-based training. Randomized trials now provide robust evidence that VATS improve postoperative recovery compared with thoracotomy in appropriately selected patients with predominantly early-stage non-small cell lung cancer, without compromising long-term oncological outcomes. Randomized comparisons between RATS and VATS support RATS as an oncologically acceptable minimally invasive alternative and suggest advantages in selected technical endpoints, particularly blood loss and lymph node retrieval, but do not demonstrate consistent superiority in major clinical or survival outcomes. Learning curves vary according to previous experience, case complexity, supervision, institutional volume, and the endpoint used to define competence, making fixed case-number thresholds an incomplete measure of proficiency. Simulation can improve selected technical skills and provide objective performance assessment, although evidence becomes progressively less robust when moving from simulator performance to operating room transfer and patient-level outcomes. Surgical approach, therefore, should be interpreted within a broader framework that includes patient and tumour characteristics, oncological quality, surgical expertise, institutional resources, and structured training.
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.