Journal of Robotic Surgery· 2026Q1· Review
Robotic-assisted lung transplantation: a systematic review of early outcomes in minimally invasive transplant surgery
- 1citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
Robotic-assisted lung transplantation is technically feasible across five centers, with early outcomes comparable to direct-vision minimally invasive approaches in a single comparative cohort.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Robotic-assisted lung transplantation has been performed across five centers in 27 recipients.
- In a comparative cohort, robotic (n=21) and direct-vision (n=90) minimally invasive lung transplants showed similar one-year survival (95.0% vs. 95.5%).
- Grade-3 primary graft dysfunction at 72h was comparable (4.8% vs. 8.9%) between robotic and direct-vision approaches.
- Robotic procedures had significantly longer ischemic times (486 vs. 408 min) compared to direct-vision.
- Evidence certainty for all outcomes was rated as very low.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Lung transplantation is conventionally performed through clamshell thoracosternotomy or sternotomy, approaches associated with pain, impaired wound healing, and chronic neuralgia. Robotic assistance has reached transplantation only recently. We systematically reviewed the clinical experience with robotic-assisted lung transplantation. Following PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to 15 August 2026, with trial registries, conference abstracts, and Chinese-language sources, without language restriction. Human robotic lung transplant reports with at least one clinical outcome were eligible. Because only one comparative cohort existed, synthesis was narrative; no meta-analysis was performed. Certainty was graded by outcome. PROSPERO: CRD420261479535. Out of 393 database records and 7 from other methods, six reports from five reporting centers (27 unique recipients) were included. No randomized trial or prior full-length systematic review was identified. In the only comparative cohort (robotic n = 21 vs. direct-vision minimally invasive n = 90), one-year survival was 95.0% versus 95.5% (log-rank P = 0.84) and grade-3 primary graft dysfunction at 72 h 4.8% versus 8.9% (odds ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.06-4.34), despite longer ischemic times (486 vs. 408 min; P = 0.02). Every robotic versus direct-vision confidence interval included unity. Certainty was very low for all outcomes. Robotic lung transplantation is technically feasible across five reporting centers. Comparative evidence rests on one clinically selected, non-randomized cohort in which no difference was statistically detectable; this establishes neither equivalence nor absence of harm. Multicenter prospective evaluation with standardized outcomes is required.Registration: The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420261479535).
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Surgery
SurgeryMedicine