Early Outcomes of Robotic Versus Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Anatomical Resection for Lung Cancer.

Abstract

BackgroundWe compared the safety and effectiveness of robotic anatomical resection and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS).MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted of the records of 4,283 patients, in whom an attempt was made to perform minimally invasive anatomical resection for lung cancer at Seoul National University Hospital from January 2011 to July 2020. Of these patients, 138 underwent robotic surgery and 4,145 underwent VATS. Perioperative outcomes were compared after propensity score matching including age, sex, height, weight, pulmonary function, smoking status, performance status, comorbidities, type of resection, combined bronchoplasty/angioplasty, tumor size, clinical T/N category, histology, and neoadjuvant treatment.ResultsIn total, 137 well-balanced pairs were obtained. There were no cases of 30-day mortality in the entire cohort. Conversion to thoracotomy was required more frequently in the VATS group (VATS 6.6% vs. robotic 0.7%, p=0.008). The complete resection rate (VATS 97.8% vs. robotic 98.5%, p=1.000) and postoperative complication rate (VATS 17.5% vs. robotic 19.0%, p=0.874) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The robotic group showed a slightly shorter hospital stay (VATS 5.8±3.9 days vs. robotic 5.0±3.6 days, p=0.052). N2 nodal upstaging (cN0/pN2) was more common in the robotic group than the VATS group, but without statistical significance (VATS 4% vs. robotic 12%, p=0.077).ConclusionRobotic anatomical resection in lung cancer showed comparable early outcomes when compared to VATS. In particular, robotic resection presented a lower conversion-to-thoracotomy rate. Furthermore, a robotic approach might improve lymph node harvesting in the N2 station.