Robotic-assisted Lobectomy Research Articles

1000 Robotic-assisted lobectomies for primary lung cancer: 16 years single center experience

ObjectiveThis study aimed at describing our high-volume single center experience in robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) to evaluate short outcome and feasibility of the technique, the adequacy of oncological results, and the learning curve. MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from 1000 consecutive patients who underwent lobectomy and systematic lymphadenectomy for primary lung cancer using RATS approach between May 2007 and May 2023. ResultsNine-hundred ninety-seven patients (99.7 %) underwent lobectomy, whereas 3 (0.03 %) patients bilobectomy. Conversion rate to open surgery was 3.7 %. Minor complications occurred in 213 (21.3 %) patients, major complications in 29 patients (2.9 %). The 30-day and 90-day operative mortality was 0 % and 0.1 %, respectively. The median number of N1 + N2 stations resected was 5 (range 0–9), with a median number of 17 of N1 + N2 lymph nodes resected (range 0–55). The oncological outcome was evaluated only on the subgroup of patients (n = 895) with non-small cell lung cancer. Pathological lymph node upstaging from cN0 to pN1/pN2 was evident in 147 patients (17.3 %): 9 % from cN0 to pN1 and 7.1 % from cN0 to pN2. With a median follow-up of 3.9, 5-year OS and DFS were respectively 89.3 % and 83.6 % for stage I, 74 % and 66.5 % for stage II, and 61 % and 36.4 % for stage IIIA. ConclusionsBetter vision and excellent instrument maneuverability of the robotic surgical system allowed excellent results in terms of early, adequate oncological outcome comparable to open surgery literature data, and acceptable learning curve. Ultramini abstract1000 consecutive patients who underwent lobectomy and systematic lymphadenectomy for primary lung cancer using RATS approach have been analyzed with the aim to describe our high-volume single center experience, and to evaluate short outcome and feasibility of the technique, the adequacy of oncological results, and the learning curve.

Robotic-assisted versus video-assisted lobectomy for resectable non-small-cell lung cancer: the RVlob randomized controlled trial

The long-term survival and perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted lobectomy (RAL) and video-assisted lobectomy (VAL) in resectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were found to be comparable in retrospective studies, but they have not been investigated in a randomized trial setting. We conducted the RVlob trial to investigate if RAL was non-inferior to VAL in patients with resectable NSCLC. In this single-center, open-label, and parallel-arm randomized controlled trial conducted in Ruijin Hospital (Shanghai, China) between May 2017 and May 2020, we randomly assigned patients with resectable NSCLC in a 1:1 ratio to receive either RAL or VAL. One of the primary endpoints was 3-year overall survival. Secondary endpoints included 3-year disease-free survival. The Kaplan-Meier approach was used to calculate overall survival and disease-free survival at 3 years. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03134534. A total of 320 patients were randomized to receive RAL (n=157) or VAL (n=163). The baseline characteristics of patients were well balanced between the two groups. After a median follow-up of 58.0 months, the 3-year overall survival was 94.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.0-98.3) in the RAL group and 91.5% (95% CI, 87.2-96.0) in the VAL group (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.33-1.28; P=0.21); noninferiority of RAL was confirmed according to the predefined margin of-5% (absolute difference, 2.96%; a one-sided 90% CI,-1.39% to ∞; P=0.0029 for noninferiority). The 3-year disease-free survival was 88.7% (95% CI, 83.6-94.1) in the RAL group and 85.4% (95% CI, 80.0-91.2) in the VAL group (HR for disease recurrence or death, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.50-1.52; P=0.62). This study is the first randomized trial to show that RAL resulted in non-inferior overall survival compared with VAL in patients with resectable NSCLC. Based on our results, RAL is an equally oncologically effective treatment and can be considered as an alternative to VAL for resectable NSCLC. National Natural Science Foundation of China (82072557), National Key Research and Development Program of China (2021YFC2500900), Shanghai Municipal Education Commission-Gaofeng Clinical Medicine Grant (20172005, the 2nd round of disbursement), program of Shanghai Academic Research Leader from Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (20XD1402300), Novel Interdisciplinary Research Project from Shanghai Municipal Health Commission (2022JC023), and Interdisciplinary Program of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (YG2023ZD04).

Video-Assisted vs Robotic-Assisted Lung Lobectomies for Operating Room Resource Utilization and Patient Outcomes

With increased use of robots, there is an inadequate understanding of minimally invasive modalities' time costs. This study evaluates the operative durations of robotic-assisted vs video-assisted lung lobectomies. To compare resource utilization, specifically operative time, between video-assisted and robotic-assisted thoracoscopic lung lobectomies. This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients aged 18 to 90 years who underwent minimally invasive (robotic-assisted or video-assisted) lung lobectomy from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022, with 90 days' follow-up after surgery. The study included multicenter electronic health record data from 21 hospitals within an integrated health care system in Northern California. Thoracic surgery was regionalized to 4 centers with 14 board-certified general thoracic surgeons. Robotic-assisted or video-assisted lung lobectomy. The primary outcome was operative duration (cut to close) in minutes. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, 30-day readmission, and 90-day mortality. Comparisons between video-assisted and robotic-assisted lobectomies were generated using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and the χ2 test for categorical variables. The average treatment effects were estimated with augmented inverse probability treatment weighting (AIPTW). Patient and surgeon covariates were adjusted for and included patient demographics, comorbidities, and case complexity (age, sex, race and ethnicity, neighborhood deprivation index, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, nonelective hospitalizations, emergency department visits, a validated laboratory derangement score, a validated institutional comorbidity score, a surgeon-designated complexity indicator, and a procedural code count), and a primary surgeon-specific indicator. The study included 1088 patients (median age, 70.1 years [IQR, 63.3-75.8 years]; 704 [64.7%] female), of whom 446 (41.0%) underwent robotic-assisted and 642 (59.0%) underwent video-assisted lobectomy. The median unadjusted operative duration was 172.0 minutes (IQR, 128.0-226.0 minutes). After AIPTW, there was less than a 10% difference in all covariates between groups, and operative duration was a median 20.6 minutes (95% CI, 12.9-28.2 minutes; P < .001) longer for robotic-assisted compared with video-assisted lobectomies. There was no difference in adjusted secondary patient outcomes, specifically for length of stay (0.3 days; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.8 days; P = .11) or risk of 30-day readmission (adjusted odds ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.84-1.98; P = .13). The unadjusted 90-day mortality rate (1.3% [n = 14]) was too low for the AIPTW modeling process. In this cohort study, there was no difference in patient outcomes between modalities, but operative duration was longer in robotic-assisted compared with video-assisted lung lobectomy. Given that this elevated operative duration is additive when applied systematically, increased consideration of appropriate patient selection for robotic-assisted lung lobectomy is needed to improve resource utilization.

Subcostal Specimen Removal in Completely Portal Robotic Lobectomy.

The Completely Portal Robotic Lobectomy (CPRL-4) technique is increasingly favored for lobectomy procedures due to its advancements over traditional robot-assisted lobectomy (RAL). CPRL-4 integrates a fourth robotic arm and CO2 insufflation, resulting in superior visualization within the intrathoracic cavity owing to enhanced lung deflation. While CPRL-4 effectively achieves pulmonary resection, extracting specimens typically necessitates an intercostal utility thoracotomy, which may pose risks. To address potential damage associated with this method, we introduced a subcostal trans-diaphragmatic access port during resection, later enlarging it for specimen removal post-lobectomy. This study evaluated the efficacy and feasibility of this subcostal trans-diaphragmatic specimen removal approach following CPRL-4 procedures for pulmonary malignancies, all performed by a single surgical team. The findings suggest that subcostal specimen removal post-CPRL-4 offers several advantages, including reduced risk of thoracotomy-related complications, making it a practical, feasible, and safe method. This innovation has the potential to improve outcomes and patient care in pulmonary malignancy surgeries significantly.

Robotic Lobectomy Learning Curve Has Better Clinical Outcomes than Videothoracoscopic Lobectomy.

Introduction: The robotic-assisted (RATS) lobectomy learning curve is usually measured compared to an established videothoracoscopic (VATS) surgery program. The objective of our study is to compare the learning curves of both techniques. Methods: We performed an intention-to-treat analysis comparing the RATS vs. VATS lobectomies. Surgical time, conversions, complications, number of lymph nodes (LNs) and lymph node stations harvested, chest drainage duration, length of stay, readmissions, and 90-day mortality were compared between both groups. The learning curve was assessed using the CUSUM method. Results: RATS cases (30) and VATS cases (35) displayed no significant differences. The RATS learning curve was completed after 23 procedures while the VATS curve required 28 interventions. Complications appeared in four RATS procedures and in eight VATS patients. No differences in the number of LNs and harvested LN stations were reported. Four patients were readmitted in the RATS group, and eight in the VATS group. No 90-day postoperative mortality was observed in either group. The RATS group reported fewer chest tube days (3 (2-5) vs. 5 (4-5.8), p = 0.005) and hospital days (4 (3-6) vs. 5 (4-6), p = 0.023). Conclusions: The RATS curve appears shorter than the VATS curve. RATS lobectomies resulted in reduced chest tube duration and length of stay during the learning time period.

Institutional Experience With Robotic Lobectomy After Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy and Chemotherapy

BackgroundThe real-world safety of robotic resections after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy remains poorly defined in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Due to reported increased operative challenges after neoadjuvant immunotherapy, we aim to describe our early institutional experience and outcomes after robotic resection in this clinical context. MethodsWe performed a retrospective chart review of patients with non-small cell lung cancer who underwent a robotic lobectomy, comparing patients from June 1, 2022, through October 31, 2023, who were treated with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy consistent with the Checkmate-816 protocol and a control group with upfront resection. ResultsA total of 21 patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy and robotic lobectomy in our cohort, and 64 patients were in the control group. Compared with control, the median tumor size was 3.2 cm vs 2.0 cm (P = .001). The most common clinical stage was IIIA (11 patients, 52%) in the neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy group and IA2 in the control group (26 patients, 45%) (P < .001). Operative time was greater in the neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy group (224 vs 177 minutes, P = .011). The median quantity of lymph nodes resected in the neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy group was greater (21 vs 16.5, P = .042). A R0 resection was achieved in all cases and no conversions to an open lobectomy occurred. Postoperative length of stay was 2 days in both groups (P = .92), and there were similar rates of postoperative air leak (33% vs 48%, P = .23) and acute post-hemorrhagic anemia (19% vs 14%, P = .58). ConclusionsIn our cohort, robotic-assisted lobectomy was safe and of comparable quality in the setting of neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy.

Clinical effectiveness of robotic-assisted compared to open or video-assisted lobectomy in Germany: a real-world data analysis.

Despite robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) lobectomy being on the rise in Europe, the majority of lobectomies in Germany are still performed with an open or thoracoscopic [video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS)] approach. Empirical evidence in favour of RATS lobectomy is inconsistent. This retrospective cohort study investigates the impact of RATS lobectomy compared with open thoracic surgery (OPEN) and VATS lobectomy on short-term outcomes in Germany using multicentre real-world data. Anonymized routine data from Germany from 2018 to 2020 were retrospectively analysed. These data were provided by 61 German hospitals. Propensity score matching with subsequent generalized linear models was performed for statistical analysis. Additionally, in order to test the robustness of the results, multivariable regression analyses with cluster-robust standard errors were used. A total of 2498 patients with lobectomy were identified: in 1345 patients OPEN, in 983 VATS and 170 a RATS lobectomy was performed. RATS-compared to OPEN and VATS-reduced length of stay (LOS) by 28% or 4.2 days [confidence interval: 2.9; 5.4] and by 13% or 1.6 days [confidence interval: 0.2; 3.0], respectively. The risk of pneumonia was reduced by 5.3 percentage points in the RATS group compared to both OPEN and VATS (P = 0.07/0.01). RATS-compared to an open approach-reduces the risk of blood transfusions by 8.8 percentage points (P < 0.001) and LOS on the intensive care unit (P < 0.001). This study provides strong support that RATS lobectomy outperforms OPEN or VATS lobectomy in terms of hospital LOS, and short-term in-hospital postoperative complications in the real-world scenario in Germany.

RoboticAssisted (RATS) versus Video-Assisted (VATS) lobectomy: A monocentric prospective randomized trial

IntroductionThe study aim is to compare Video-Assisted (VATS) and Robotic-Assisted (RATS) lobectomy in the effort to identify advantages and limits of robotic procedures considering the high costs and specific surgeon training. Materials and methodsThis is a monocentric prospective randomized trial in which patients suitable for mini-invasive lobectomy were randomized 1:2 in two groups: Group A, RATS (25 patients), and Group B, VATS (50 patients). The two groups were compared in terms of perioperative and postoperative results with a mean follow up of 37.9 (±10.9) months. ResultsWe observed a significant reduction of pleural effusion on day 1 (140 ml vs 214, p = 0.003) and day 2 (186 vs 321, p = 0.001) for group A. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) showed significantly lower pain in the 1st p.o. day in group A (0,92 vs 1,17, p = 0,005). Surgery time in Group B was significantly lower (160 min vs 180, p = 0.036), but had a higher onset of atrial fibrillation and other cardiac arrhythmias (0/25 vs 9/50, p = 0.038). The OS and DFS were similar between the two groups (95.5 % vs 93.1 %, and 95.5 % vs 89.7 %, respectively). Furthermore, no statistical difference in the evaluation of quality of life during follow-up was found. ConclusionsThe RATS approach, although burdened by higher surgical costs, constitutes a valid alternative to VATS; as it determines a lower inflammatory insult, with a consequent reduction in pleural effusion, less post-operative pain and cardiological comorbidities for the patient, it can potentially determine the shortening in hospitalization. In addition, RATS allows accurate lymph node dissection, which permit to reach results that are not inferior to VATS in terms of long-term outcomes.

Elevated respiratory complications following robotic-assisted lobectomy: A national cohort analysis of 26,140 cases.

Robotic-assisted lobectomy (RL) is increasingly used nationally, but little comparative data exist on its safety compared with open lobectomy (OL) or video-assisted lobectomy (VL). This study aimed to estimate the risk of perioperative complications for RL, VL, or OL. Admissions were identified from the hospital administrative data collected between 2015 and 2019. Propensity score matching and inverse probabilistic weighting were used to account for selection bias. Logistic and quantile regression models were applied to determine perioperative outcome differences. We identified 26,140 cases of which 5337 (20.4%), 12,680 (48.5%), and 8123 (31.1%) underwent RL, VL, and OL. RL and VL were associated with lower complication rates, shorter lengths of stay, and fewer mortality risks. RL was associated with significantly elevated risks for perioperative respiratory complications (adjusted odds ratio 1.10, p=0.010). Relatively low rates of perioperative complications for VL and RL, and higher respiratory complication rates in RL are concerning.

Comparison of Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Surgery with objective performance indicators for the assessment of skill during robotic-assisted thoracic surgery

BackgroundThe Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills is a popular but ultimately subjective assessment tool in robotic-assisted surgery. An alternative approach is to record system or console events or calculate instrument kinematics to derive objective performance indicators. The aim of this study was to compare these 2 approaches and correlate the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills with different types of objective performance indicators during robotic-assisted lobectomy. MethodsVideo, system event, and kinematic data were recorded from the robotic surgical system during left upper lobectomy on a standardized perfused and pulsatile ex vivo porcine heart–lung model. Videos were segmented into steps, and the superior vein dissection was graded independently by 2 blinded expert surgeons with Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills. Objective performance indicators representing categories for energy use, event data, movement, smoothness, time, and wrist articulation were calculated for the same task and compared to Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills scores. ResultsVideo and data from 51 cases were analyzed (44 fellows, 7 attendings). Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills scores were significantly higher for attendings (P < .05), but there was a significant difference in raters’ scores of 31.4% (defined as >20% difference in total score). The interclass correlation was 0.44 for 1 rater and 0.61 for 2 raters. Objective performance indicators correlated with Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills to varying degrees. The most highly correlated Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills domain was efficiency. Instrument movement and smoothness were highly correlated among objective performance indicator categories. Of individual objective performance indicators, right-hand median jerk, an objective performance indicator of change of acceleration, had the highest correlation coefficient (0.55). ConclusionThere was a relatively poor overall correlation between the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills and objective performance indicators. However, both appear strongly correlated for certain metrics such as efficiency and smoothness. Objective performance indicators may be a potentially more quantitative and granular approach to assessing skill, given that they can be calculated mathematically and automatically without subjective interpretation.

Comparison of transfusion rates between robotic- and video-assisted lobectomy: a propensity score matching analysis.

The objective is to compare the perioperative blood transfusion rate and postoperative complications between robot-assisted surgery and thoracoscopic surgery in lung cancer patients. This is a single-center retrospective study. Patients underwent lung cancer minimally invasive resection at Fujian Cancer Hospital from April 1, 2022, to April 30, 2023, were enrolled in this study. Patients were divided into robotic-assisted lobectomy (RAL) and video-assisted lobectomy (VAL) groups according to the surgical methods. Data, including demographics, clinic variables, and endpoint outcomes were collected from the electronic medical record. Propensity score matching(PSM) was performed to analyze the baseline data of patients. The RAL group and the VAL group were matched 1:1. Then, the blood transfusion rates and short-term outcomes of the two groups were compared. A logistic regression was performed to analyze the independent risk factors of perioperative blood transfusion. A total of 558 patients were enrolled in this study. 166 of 558 patients were divided into the RAL group, and 392 patients were into the VAL group. A total of 118 patients were selected and analyzed following propensity score matching. After PSM, there was no difference in perioperative transfusion rates, including RBC transfusion and frozen plasma transfusion, between the VAL and RAL groups (P > 0.05). TheRAL group had fewer days of drainage tubes (P = 0.036). There was no difference in other short-term outcomes, including the volume of thoracic drainage, the volume of intraoperative blood loss, the length of hospitalization, and the rate of postoperative pulmonary infection (P > 0.05). Volume of intraoperative blood loss, volume of thoracic drainage, and preoperative hemoglobin were independent risk factors of perioperative red blood cell or frozen plasma transfusion; however, RAL or VAL was not. The study showed that the rates of perioperative blood transfusion were comparable between RAL and VAL. RAL is superior for patient recovery in terms of short-term outcomes.

Two cases of robot-assisted repair of bronchial injury caused during robot-assisted lobectomy

Two cases of robot-assisted repair of bronchial injury caused during robot-assisted lobectomy

Scoping review on long term oncologic outcomes in robotic-assisted lobectomy

Scoping review on long term oncologic outcomes in robotic-assisted lobectomy

A novel approach to quantifying surgical workflow in robotic-assisted lobectomy.

Understanding surgical workflow is critical for optimizing efficiencies and outcomes; however, most research evaluating workflow is impacted by observer subjectivity, limiting its reproducibility, scalability, and actionability. To address this, we developed a novel approach to quantitatively describe workflow within robotic-assisted lobectomy (RL). We demonstrate the utility of this approach by analysing features of surgical workflow that correlate with procedure duration. RL was deconstructed into 12 tasks by expert thoracic surgeons. Task start and stop times were annotated across videos of 10 upper RLs (5 right and 5 left). Markov Networks were used to estimate both the likelihood of transitioning from one task to another and each task-transition entropy (i.e. complexity). Associations between the frequency with which each task was revisited intraoperatively and procedure duration were assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Entropy calculations identified fissure dissection and hilar node dissection as tasks with especially complex transitions, while mediastinal lymph node dissection and division of pulmonary veins were less complex. The number of transitions to three tasks significantly correlated with case duration (fissure dissection (R=0.69, p=0.01), dissect arteries (R=0.59, p=0.03), and divide arteries (R=0.63, p=0.03)). This pilot demonstrates the feasibility of objectively quantifying workflow between RL tasks and introduces entropy as a new metric of task-transition complexity. These innovative measures of surgical workflow enable detailed characterization of a given surgery and might indicate behaviour that impacts case progression. We discuss how these measures can serve as a foundation and be combined with relevant clinical information to better understand factors influencing surgical inefficiency.

Ability of single anesthesia for combined robotic-assisted bronchoscopy and surgical lobectomy to reduce time between detection and treatment in stage I non–small cell lung cancer

Background Background: Early identification, diagnosis, and treatment of lung cancer is associated with improved clinical outcomes. Robotic-assisted bronchoscopy improves the ability to diagnose early stage lung malignancies and, when combined with robotic-assisted lobectomy under single anesthesia, could reduce time from identification to intervention in early stage lung cancer in a select patient population. Methods Methods: A retrospective case-control single-center study compared patients with radiographic stage I non–small cell carcinoma (NSCCA) undergoing robotic navigational bronchoscopy and surgical resection (N = 22) with historical controls (N = 63). The primary outcome was time from initial radiographic identification of a pulmonary nodule to therapeutic intervention. Secondary outcomes included times between identification to biopsy, biopsy to surgery, and procedural complications. Results Results: Patients with suspected stage I NSCCA who received single anesthesia for diagnosis and intervention with robotic-assisted bronchoscopy and robotic-assisted lobectomy had shorter times between identification of a pulmonary nodule and intervention compared to controls (65 vs 116 days, P = 0.005). Cases had lower rates of complications (0% vs 5%) and shorter hospitalizations after surgery (3.6 vs 6.2 days, P = 0.017). Conclusion Conclusion: Our findings support that implementing a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology team and single-anesthesia biopsy-to-surgery approach in management of stage I NSCCA significantly reduced times from identification to intervention, biopsy to intervention, and length of hospital stays in management of lung cancer.

Health-Related Quality of Life Following Robotic-Assisted or Video-Assisted Lobectomy in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results From the RVlob Randomized Clinical Trial

Robot-assisted lobectomy (RAL) is increasingly used as an alternative to video-assisted lobectomy (VAL) for resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, there is little evidence of any difference in postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) between these two approaches. Is RAL superior to VAL in improving quality of life in patients with resectable NSCLC? We performed a single-center, open-label randomized clinical trial from May 2017 to May 2020 with 320 enrolled patients undergoing RAL or VAL for resectable NSCLC (RVlob trial; NCT03134534). Postoperative pain was evaluated by visual analog score or numeric rating score on postoperative day 1 and at weeks 4, 24, and 48. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire in Lung Cancer (QLQ-LC13), and the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire were also administered at weeks 4, 24, and 48 after surgery. One hundred and fifty-seven patients underwent RAL and 163 underwent VAL. The mean pain score of patients after RAL was significantly lower at week 4 (2.097 ± 0.111 vs2.431 ± 0.108; P= .032). QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 summary scores (P > .05) were similar for both RAL and VAL during the first 48weeks of follow-up. HRQoL scores assessed with the EQ-5D questionnaire were also comparable between the two groups (P > .05) during the whole study period. Both RAL and VAL showed satisfactory and comparable HRQoL and postoperative pain up to 48weeks after surgery, despite some minor statistical differences at week4. ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03134534; URL: www. gov.

The learning curve of the robotic-assisted lobectomy-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Early studies have illustrated the robotic lobectomy to be safe, oncologically effective, and economically feasible as a therapeutic modality in the treatment of thoracic malignancies. The 'challenging' learning curve seemingly associated with the robotic approach, however, continues to be an often-cited factor to its ongoing uptake, with the overwhelming volume of these surgeries being performed in centers of excellence where extensive experience with minimal access surgery is the norm. An exact quantification of this learning curve challenge, however, has not been made, begging the question of whether this is an outdated assumption, versus fact. This systematic review and meta-analysis sort to clarify the learning curve for robotic-assisted lobectomy based on the existing literature. An electronic search of four databases was performed to identify relevant studies outlining the learning curve of robotic lobectomy. The primary endpoint was a clear definition of operator learning (e.g., cumulative sum chart, linear regression, outcome-specific analysis, etc.) which could be subsequently aggregated or reported. Secondary endpoints of interest included post-operative outcomes and complication rates. A meta-analysis using a random effects model of proportions or means was applied, as appropriate. The search strategy identified twenty-two studies relevant for inclusion. A total of 3,246 patients (30% male) receiving robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) were identified. The mean age of the cohort was 65.3±5.0 years. Mean operative, console and dock time was 190.5±53.8, 125.8±33.9 and 10.2±4.0 minutes, respectively. Length of hospital stay was 6.1±4.6 days. Technical proficiency with the robotic-assisted lobectomy was achieved at a mean of 25.3±12.6 cases. The robotic-assisted lobectomy has been illustrated to have a reasonable learning curve profile based on the existing literature. Current evidence on the oncologic efficacy and purported benefits of the robotic approach will be bolstered by the results of upcoming randomized trials, which will be critical in supporting RATS uptake.

The impact of an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for video-assisted and robotic-assisted lobectomy on surgical outcomes and costs: a retrospective single-center cohort study.

To determine the impact of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway implementation on outcomes and cost of robotic- and video-assisted thoracoscopic (RATS and VATS) lobectomy. Retrospective review of 116 consecutive VATS and RATS lobectomies in the pre-ERAS (Oct 2018-Sep 2019) and ERAS (Oct 2019-Sep 2020) period. Multivariate analysis was used to determine the impact of ERAS and operative approach alone, and in combination, on length of hospital stay (LOS) and overall cost. Operative approach was 49.1% VATS, 50.9% RATS, with 44.8% pre-ERAS, and 55.2% ERAS (median age 68, 65.5% female). ERAS patients had shorter LOS (2.22 vs 3.45days) and decreased total cost ($15,022 vs $20,155) compared with non-ERAS patients, while RATS was associated with decreased LOS (2.16 vs 4.19days) and decreased total cost ($14,729 vs $20,484) compared with VATS. The combination of ERAS + RATS showed the shortest LOS and the lowest total cost (1.35days and $13,588, P < 0.001 vs other combinations). On multivariate analysis, ERAS significantly decreased LOS (P = 0.001) and total cost (P = 0.003) compared with pre-ERAS patients; RATS significantly decreased LOS (P < 0.001) and total cost (P = 0.004) compared with VATS approach. ERAS implementation and robotic approach were independently associated with LOS reduction and cost savings in patients undergoing minimally invasive lobectomy. A combination of ERAS and RATS approach synergistically decreases LOS and overall cost.

CO156 The Comparative Postoperative Outcomes between Robotic-Assisted Lobectomy and Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery for Treating Lung Cancer in Japan

In Japan, robotic assisted lobectomy (RAL) was awarded public reimbursement in April 2018, but there is limited evidence comparing RAL to conventional video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). In this study, we compare the postoperative outcomes of VATS and RAL by using Japanese population-based dataset.

2022 Canadian Surgery Forum Sept. 15–17, 202201. Operative classification of ventral abdominal hernias: new and practical classification02. Watchful waiting for large primary splenic cysts03. Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks with and without dexamethasone in colorectal surgery04. What factors determine publication of resident research day projects?05. Characterization of near-infrared imaging and indocyanine green use amongst general surgeons06. Variation in opioid prescribing

# 01. Operative classification of ventral abdominal hernias: new and practical classification {#article-title-2} Ventral hernias of the abdomen are defined as a noninguinal, nonhiatal defect in the fascia of the abdominal wall. Unfortunately, there is not currently a universal classification system