Evaluation of a robot-assisted video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery programme

Long-term and short-term outcomes of robot- versus video-assisted anatomic lung resection in lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive thoracic surgery has evolved with the introduction of robotic platforms. This study aimed to compare the long-term and short-term outcomes of the robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) and video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) for anatomic lung resection.

METHODS

We searched published studies that investigated RATS and VATS in anatomic lung resection. Long-term outcomes (disease-free survival and overall survival) and short-term outcomes (30-day mortality, postoperative complications, conversion rate to open surgery and lymph node upstaging) were extracted. The features were compared and tested as hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) at a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies with 50 404 patients (7135 for RATS and 43 269 for VATS) were included. The RATS group had a longer disease-free survival than the VATS group (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.59-0.97; P = 0.03), and the overall survival showed a similar trend but was not statistically significant (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.57-1.05; P = 0.10). The RATS group showed a significantly lower 30-day mortality (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.38-0.81; P = 0.002). No significant difference was found in postoperative complications (OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.87-1.16; P = 0.94), the conversion rate to open surgery (OR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.56-1.52; P = 0.75) and lymph node upstaging (OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.52-1.54; P = 0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

RATS has comparable short-term outcomes and potential long-term survival benefits for anatomic lung resection compared with VATS.

Efficacy and Safety of Robot-assisted Thoracic Surgery (RATS) Compare with Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) for Lung Lobectomy in Patients with Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

In the past decade, many researchers focused on Robotic- Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (RATS), which has been introduced as an alternative minimally invasive approach, versus Video- Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) for lung lobectomy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. However, the advantage of RVATS compared to VATS is still under investigation. The results are unclear.

AIM

The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of Robot-assisted Thoracic Surgery (RATS) lobectomy versus Video-assisted Thoracic Surgery (VATS) for lobectomy in patients with Non- Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

A systematic electronic search of online electronic databases: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library updated in June 2017. The meta-analysis was performed including the studies are designed as randomized or non- randomized controlled.

RESULTS

Twenty retrospective cohort studies met our inclusion criteria. The pooled analysis of mortality showed that RATS lobectomy significantly reduced the mortality rate when compared with VATS lobectomy (RR =0.53, 95% CI 0.37 - 0.76; P = 0.0005). With the pooled result of duration of surgery indicated that RATS has a tendency towards longer surgery time (SMD= 0.52, 95% CI 0.23- 0.81; P < 0.0004=). However, the meta-analysis on the median length of hospital stay (MD =0.00, 95% CI -0.03 - 0.03; P = 0.91), number of dissected lymph nodes station (SMD =0.39, 95% CI -0.60 - 1.38; P = 0.44), the number of removed lymph nodes (SMD =0.98, 95% CI -0.61 - 2.56; P = 0.23), mean duration of drainage (SMD =0.29, 95% CI -0.15 - 0.73; P = 0.20), prolonged air leak (RR =1.01, 95% CI 0.84 - 1.21; P = 0.93), arrhythmia (RR =1.06, 95% CI 0.88 - 1.26; P = 0.54) (P= 0.54), pneumonia (RR =0.89, 95% CI 0.69 - 1.13; P = 0.33), the incidence of conversion (RR =0.82, 95% CI 0.54 - 1.26; P = 0.37) and morbidity (RR =1.05, 95% CI 0.90 - 1.23; P = 0.055) all showed no significant differences between RATS and VATS lobectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

RATS result in better mortality as compared with VATS. However, robotics seems to have longer operative time and higher hospital costs, without superior advantages in morbidity rates and oncologic efficiency. Since the advantages of RATS has been performed in some area, the continuation of a comparative investigation with VATS may be necessary. And some efforts need to be taken into consideration to reduce the operative time and cost.

Compare the prognosis of Da Vinci robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) with video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) for non-small cell lung cancer: A Meta-analysis

To determine if there are advantages to transitioning to Da Vinci robotics by a surgeon compared to the video-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy.A systematic electronic search of online electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library updated on December 2017. Publications on comparison Da Vinci-robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) and video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) for non-small cell lung cancer were collected. Meta-analysis RevMan 5.3 software (The Cochrane collaboration, Oxford, UK) was used to analyze the combined pooled HRs using fixed or random-effects models according to the heterogeneity.Fourteen retrospective cohort studies were included. No statistical difference was found between the 2 groups with respect to conversion to open, dissected lymph nodes number, hospitalization time after surgery, duration of surgery, drainage volume after surgery, prolonged air leak, and morbidity (P > .05).Da Vinci-RATS lobectomy is a feasible and safe technique and can achieve an equivalent surgical efficacy when compared with VATS. There does not seem to be a significant advantage for an established VATS lobectomy surgeon to transition to robotics based on clinical outcomes.

Perioperative outcomes of robotic surgery for the treatment of lung cancer compared to a conventional video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) technique

Aim

To conduct a meta-analysis to determine the relative merits between robotic video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (R-VATS) and conventional video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for lung cancer.

Results

Fifteen studies matched the selection criterion, which reported 8827 subjects, of whom 1704 underwent R-VATS and 7123 underwent VATS. Compared the perioperative outcomes with VATS, reports of R-VATS indicated unfavorable outcomes considering the operative time (SMD = 0.48, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.81). Meanwhile, the number of dissected lymph nodes (SMD = 0.12, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.51) and hospital stay following surgery (SMD = -0.1; 95% CI -0.27 to 0.07), conversion (RR = 0.68; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.11), morbidity (RR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07) and mortality (RR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.09) were similar for both procedures.

Materials and Methods

A literature search was performed to identify comparative studies reporting perioperative outcomes for R-VATS and VATS for lung cancer. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using either the fixed effects model or the random effects model.

Conclusions

There is no difference in terms of perioperative outcomes between R-VATS and VATS except for the operative time which is significantly high for R-VATS. Further studies are required to confirm these results.

Feasibility and safety of robot-assisted thoracic surgery for lung lobectomy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) lobectomy versus video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) for lobectomy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

An electronic search of six electronic databases was performed to identify relevant comparative studies. Meta-analysis was performed by pooling the results of reported incidence of overall morbidity, mortality, prolonged air leak, arrhythmia, and pneumonia between RATS and VATS lobectomy. Subgroup analysis was also conducted based on matched and unmatched cohort studies, if possible. Relative risks (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated by means of Revman version 5.3.

Results

Twelve retrospective cohort studies were included, with a total of 60,959 patients. RATS lobectomy significantly reduced the mortality rate when compared with VATS lobectomy (RR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.38–0.77; P = 0.0006), but this was not consistent with the pooled result of six matched studies (RR = 0.12, 95% CI 0.01–1.07; P = 0.06). There was no significant difference in morbidity between the two approaches (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.85–1.12; P = 0.70).

Conclusions

RATS lobectomy is a feasible and safe technique and can achieve an equivalent short-term surgical efficacy when compared with VATS, but its cost effectiveness also should be taken into consideration.

Preferences for treatment of lobectomy in Chinese lung cancer patients: video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery or open thoracotomy?

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to investigate the preferences for treatment of lobectomy in Chinese lung cancer patients and differences in the psychological and social factors that influence treatment decision-making.

METHODS

One hundred and forty patients with stage I lung cancer were recruited from Hebei Cangzhou Central Hospital. Before surgery, the patients completed a questionnaire that surveyed their preferences for treatment and the relevant influencing factors. Differences in psychological and social characteristics were compared between lung cancer patients who chose video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and those who opted for open thoracotomy.

RESULTS

Among the 135 valid questionnaires, 79 patients preferred VATS and 56 patients chose open thoracotomy. Potential side effects, doctors' recommendation, the prognosticated chance for cure, cosmesis, and financial burden influenced the patients' decisions.

CONCLUSION

The minimally invasive advantages of VATS, including lesser trauma to the chest wall, earlier remission of postoperative pain, faster recovery, less bleeding, and improved cardiopulmonary function made VATS more attractive to patients needing lobectomy for lung cancer. However, the choice of VATS over open thoracotomy is still influenced by the degree of prognosticated cure and the feasibility of surgery.