Robot-Assisted Thoracic Surgery Versus Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery for Lung Lobectomy or Segmentectomy in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: It remains no clear conclusion about which is better between robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) and video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) for the treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to compare the short-term and long-term efficacy between RATS and VATS for NSCLC. Methods: Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Medline and Web of Science databases were comprehensively searched for studies published before December 2020. The quality of the articles was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the data analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3 software. Fixed or random effect models were applied according to heterogeneity. A sensitivity analysis was conducted. A funnel plot of the overall complication was used to assess the potential publication bias. Results: A total of 18 studies including 11247 patients were included in the meta-analyses, of which 5114 patients were in the RATS group and 6133 in the VATS group. Compared with VATS, RATS was associated with less blood loss (WMD = -50.40, 95% CI -90.32~-10.48, P = 0.010), lower conversion rate (OR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.43~0.60, P < 0.001), more harvested lymph nodes (WMD = 1.72, 95% CI 0.63~2.81, P = 0.002) and stations (WMD = 0.51, 95% CI 0.15~0.86, P = 0.005), shorter duration of postoperative chest tube drainage (WMD = -0.61, 95% CI -0.78~-0.44, P < 0.001) and hospital stay (WMD = -1.12, 95% CI -1.58~-0.66, P < 0.001), lower overall complication rate (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.83~0.99, P = 0.020), and lower recurrence rate (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.36~0.72, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between RATS and VATS in operative time, mortality, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Sensitivity analysis showed that no significant differences were found between the two techniques in conversion rate, number of harvested lymph nodes and stations, and overall complication. Conclusions: The results revealed that RATS is a feasible and safe technique compared with VATS in terms of short and long term outcomes. Moreover, more randomized controlled trials comparing the two techniques with rigorous study designs are still essential to evaluate the value of the robotic surgery for NSCLC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".