EUVIMEDEuropean Health Evidence
Uhr Sources10/10 Journal Tree
Easy Demo

European Health Evidence

The European alternative to PubMed

EUVIMED is the European alternative to PubMed: a central, multilingual research platform for medicine, nursing, life sciences and healthcare. It brings together international and European literature sources, study registries, open-access full texts, citations and retraction notices in one search. Unlike pure bibliographic databases, EUVIMED supports the entire research process – from discovery and appraisal with LIVIA and CLARA to traceable evidence synthesis. European in focus, transparent, interoperable and designed for science and healthcare.

EuropeanMultilingualInteroperableTraceable

EUVIMED BETA

EUVIMED is currently in beta

EUVIMED is under continuous development. Features, data coverage and presentation may change or be temporarily incomplete.

Results are beta

Search results, classifications, summaries and AI-assisted assessments may be incomplete, delayed or incorrect.

Check original sources

Do not use EUVIMED results without verification for diagnosis, treatment or other clinical decisions. Always consult the original source and applicable guidelines.

Errors and feedback help us improve EUVIMED: info@euvimed.com

Lokaler Crossref-Datenbestand · journal-article

Robotic-assisted transbronchial biopsy versus computed tomography–guided transthoracic needle biopsy for peripheral pulmonary lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of direct comparative studies

Atef A. Hassan, Mohamed Mostafa El Sheikh, Amr A. Hassan, Abdelrahman Mady, Mohab Hesham, Yousef Mohamed Hamroush, Shimaa Mostafa Elnahas Wahdan, Mustafa M. Kaff, Mohamed Ashraf Abd El Moniem, Mona Ibrahim Ahmed

Journal of Robotic Surgery · 2026

Vollständiger Abstract

Worum geht es in dieser Arbeit?

Abstract Robotic-assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) and computed tomography–guided transthoracic biopsy (CTTB) are competing strategies for sampling peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs). Whether they differ in yield or safety is uncertain. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review restricted to direct comparisons. We searched MEDLINE, Europe PMC, Scopus, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 7 July 2026 for studies directly comparing RAB with CTTB in adults with PPLs. The primary outcome was strict 2024 American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians diagnostic yield. Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I and certainty with GRADE. A cohort-genealogy step identified, per outcome, the largest set of cohorts sharing no patients; only that set was pooled, with Hartung–Knapp and Mantel–Haenszel sensitivity analyses. Five retrospective studies from one US health system were eligible. Four share patients; at most three cohorts are mutually independent. Across those three, diagnostic yield was comparable (risk ratio [RR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93–1.06; I²=24%; Hartung–Knapp 0.87–1.13), with an identical relative effect under strict and intermediate definitions although absolute yields fell from 88% to 74–84% under strict criteria. Pneumothorax requiring a chest tube and/or admission was about three-quarters less frequent with RAB across all three cohorts (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.14–0.46; I²=0%; Hartung–Knapp 0.07–0.96). Strict yield (RR 0.99) and any pneumothorax (RR 0.06) were reported by two cohorts each and neither survives the few-studies correction. RAB took about 50 min longer than CTTB where same-session staging endobronchial ultrasound was counted in the robotic time, but only about 8 min longer than CTTB where it was not. Only one cohort reported yield by lesion size category and none reported yield by bronchus sign or lung zone, so lesion-level subgroups could not be pooled. Certainty was low for pleural complications and very low elsewhere. Low-certainty evidence indicates that RAB is associated with fewer pleural complications, with no statistically detectable difference in diagnostic yield; equivalence was not formally established. Because all evidence is retrospective, confined to one health system, and almost never stratified by lesion size or accessibility, these findings are hypothesis-generating and require a multicenter randomized trial.

Bibliografischer Nachweis

Publikationsdaten

Autor:innen
Atef A. Hassan, Mohamed Mostafa El Sheikh, Amr A. Hassan, Abdelrahman Mady, Mohab Hesham, Yousef Mohamed Hamroush, Shimaa Mostafa Elnahas Wahdan, Mustafa M. Kaff, Mohamed Ashraf Abd El Moniem, Mona Ibrahim Ahmed
Quelle
Journal of Robotic Surgery
Publikation
2026-01-01
Band / Ausgabe
Nicht angegeben
Seiten
Nicht angegeben
ISSN / ISBN
1863-2491
Zitationen
0 laut Crossref
Referenzen
0 hinterlegt

Zitieren

Zitierfähiger Nachweis

Atef A. Hassan, Mohamed Mostafa El Sheikh, Amr A. Hassan, Abdelrahman Mady, Mohab Hesham, Yousef Mohamed Hamroush, Shimaa Mostafa Elnahas Wahdan, Mustafa M. Kaff, Mohamed Ashraf Abd El Moniem, Mona Ibrahim Ahmed (2026). Robotic-assisted transbronchial biopsy versus computed tomography–guided transthoracic needle biopsy for peripheral pulmonary lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of direct comparative studies. Journal of Robotic Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-026-03867-8
RIS BibTeX CSL-JSON

Kontext

Themen, Förderung und Nutzung

Lizenzhinweise: Lizenz 1