SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
Robot-assisted versus open thymectomy a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score matched studies.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimThymectomy can be achieved through open surgery or minimally invasive approaches including video-assisted and robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. The present review aimed to compare the operative and postoperative outcomes of open and robot-assisted thymectomy (RAT) by analysis of published propensity score matched studies. Methods, The present systematic review was performed in line with recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
resultsThe ten studies included in this analysis were conducted on 1729 patients distributed as 919 patients (53.2%) in the open surgery arm and 810 patients (46.8%) in the RAT arm. Both interventions were comparable regarding duration of surgery, postoperative pain, frequency of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, frequency of postoperative complications, 30-day mortality, hospital readmission, tumor recurrence, 90-day mortality and overall mortality. Patients submitted to RAT had lower intraoperative blood loss [mean difference (95% CI): 185.24 (58.08-312.39)], shorter duration of chest drainage [mean difference (95% CI): 1.52 (1.43-1.60)], lower frequency of major postoperative complications [Risk Ratio (95% CI): 2.01 (1.18-3.42)], shorter duration of hospital stay [mean difference (95% CI): 2.31 (1.87-2.75)] and lower frequency of adjuvant radiotherapy [Risk Ratio (95% CI): 1.63 (1.09-2.44)].
conclusionsPatients submitted to RAT experienced lower intraoperative blood, shorter duration of chest drainage, lower frequency of major postoperative complications, shorter duration of hospital stay, and lower frequency of adjuvant radiotherapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40711599What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.