Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVES: Locally advanced lung cancers present a significant challenge to minimally invasive thoracic surgeons. An increasing number of centres have adopted robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgeries for these complex operations. In this study, we compare surgical margins achieved, conversion rates to thoracotomy, perioperative mortality and 30-day readmission rates for robotic and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy for locally advanced lung cancers. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified patients with non-small-cell lung cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy/radiotherapy, had clinical N1/N2 disease or in the absence of these 2 features had a tumour >5 cm treated with either robotic or VATS lobectomy between 2010 and 2016. Perioperative outcomes and conversion rates were compared between robotic and VATS lobectomy. RESULTS: A total of 9512 patients met our inclusion criteria with 2123 (22.3%) treated with robotic lobectomy and 7389 (77.7%) treated with VATS lobectomy. Comparable R0 resections, 30- and 90-day mortality and 30-day readmission rates were observed for robotic and VATS lobectomy while a higher rate of conversion to thoracotomy was observed for VATS (aOR = 1.99, 95% confidence interval = 1.65, 2.39, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of the National Cancer Database suggests that robotic lobectomy for complex lung resections achieves similar perioperative outcomes and R0 resections as VATS lobectomy with the exception of a lower rate of conversion to thoracotomy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Baig et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: