SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic-assisted versus conventional CT-guided lung biopsy for pulmonary nodules: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
Pulmonary nodules are commonly evaluated using the CT-guided transthoracic biopsy; however, it is highly dependent on operator skill and can be associated with extended procedure duration and increased radiation exposure. Although robotic-assisted systems are intended to enhance procedural precision, there is limited comparative evidence against conventional techniques. Accordingly, this systematic review and meta‑analysis was conducted to compare robotic-assisted biopsy with conventional CT-guided transthoracic biopsy. We systematically searched Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, CNKI, and the Cochrane Library until February 2026. Both randomized trials and cohort studies comparing robotic and conventional (manual) CT-guided transthoracic needle biopsy in adults were included in this review. The outcomes included procedural efficiency, diagnostic performance, radiation exposure, and safety. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4.1, presenting MD, RR, or OR with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed. Nine studies were included. Compared with conventional (manual) CT-guided biopsy, the robotic approach was associated with shorter procedure time (MD = -4.94, 95% CI [-9.56, -0.32], P = 0.04) and lower radiation exposure (DLP) (MD = -211.55, 95% CI [-305.07, -118.03], P < 0.00001). Additionally, the robotic approach reduced the number of needle adjustments required, pneumothorax incidence, and overall complication incidence (RR = 0.460, 95% CI [0.290, 0.720], P = 0.0008). A reduction in the number of CT scans was observed only in the sensitivity analysis. Technical success, diagnostic yield, pulmonary hemorrhage, and chest tube placement were similar between the robotic-assisted and conventional techniques. Robot-assisted CT-guided biopsy was associated with lower radiation exposure, reduced procedural complexity, and fewer complications while maintaining comparable technical success and diagnostic yield. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously, given the limited number of included studies, substantial heterogeneity, and observational nature of much of the available evidence. Further large prospective studies are required to validate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42319600What 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.