Comparison of uniportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgery pulmonary anatomic resections with multiport robotic-assisted thoracic surgery: a multicenter study of the European experience.
Uniportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (U-RATS)
lung cancer
multiport robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (M-RATS)
robotic lung resections
Journal
Annals of cardiothoracic surgery
ISSN: 2225-319X
Titre abrégé: Ann Cardiothorac Surg
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101605877
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Mar 2023
31 Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
13
12
2022
accepted:
17
02
2023
medline:
11
4
2023
entrez:
10
4
2023
pubmed:
11
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) has seen increasing interest in the last few years, with most procedures primarily being performed in the conventional multiport manner. Our team has developed a new approach that has the potential to convert surgeons from uniportal video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) or open surgery to robotic-assisted surgery, uniportal-RATS (U-RATS). We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of one single incision, uniportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (U-RATS) against standard multiport RATS (M-RATS) with regards to safety, feasibility, surgical technique, immediate oncological result, postoperative recovery, and 30-day follow-up morbidity and mortality. We performed a large retrospective multi-institutional review of our prospectively curated database, including 101 consecutive U-RATS procedures performed from September 2021 to October 2022, in the European centers that our main surgeon operates in. We compared these cases to 101 consecutive M-RATS cases done by our colleagues in Barcelona between 2019 to 2022. Both patient groups were similar with respect to demographics, smoking status and tumor size, but were significantly younger in the U-RATS group [M-RATS =69 (range, 39-81) years; U-RATS =63 years (range, 19-82) years; P<0.0001]. Most patients in both operative groups underwent resection of a primary non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [M-RATS 96/101 (95%); U-RATS =60/101 (59%); P<0.0001]. The main type of anatomic resection was lobectomy for the multiport group, and segmentectomy for the U-RATS group. In the M-RATS group, only one anatomical segmentectomy was performed, while the U-RATS group had twenty-four (24%) segmentectomies (P=0.0006). All M-RATS and U-RATS surgical specimens had negative resection margins (R0) and contained an equivalent median number of lymph nodes available for pathologic analysis [M-RATS =11 (range, 5-54); U-RATS =15 (range, 0-41); P=0.87]. Conversion rate to thoracotomy was zero in the U-RATS group and low in M-RATS [M-RATS =2/101 (2%); U-RATS =0/101; P=0.19]. Median operative time was also statistically different [M-RATS =150 (range, 60-300) minutes; U-RATS =136 (range, 30-308) minutes; P=0.0001]. Median length of stay was significantly lower in U-RATS group at four days [M-RATS =5 (range, 2-31) days; U-RATS =4 (range, 1-18) days; P<0.0001]. Rate of complications and 30-day mortality was low in both groups. U-RATS is feasible and safe for anatomic lung resections and comparable to the multiport conventional approach regarding surgical outcomes. Given the similarity of the technique to uniportal VATS, it presents the potential to convert minimally invasive thoracic surgeons to a robotic-assisted approach.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) has seen increasing interest in the last few years, with most procedures primarily being performed in the conventional multiport manner. Our team has developed a new approach that has the potential to convert surgeons from uniportal video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) or open surgery to robotic-assisted surgery, uniportal-RATS (U-RATS). We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of one single incision, uniportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (U-RATS) against standard multiport RATS (M-RATS) with regards to safety, feasibility, surgical technique, immediate oncological result, postoperative recovery, and 30-day follow-up morbidity and mortality.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We performed a large retrospective multi-institutional review of our prospectively curated database, including 101 consecutive U-RATS procedures performed from September 2021 to October 2022, in the European centers that our main surgeon operates in. We compared these cases to 101 consecutive M-RATS cases done by our colleagues in Barcelona between 2019 to 2022.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Both patient groups were similar with respect to demographics, smoking status and tumor size, but were significantly younger in the U-RATS group [M-RATS =69 (range, 39-81) years; U-RATS =63 years (range, 19-82) years; P<0.0001]. Most patients in both operative groups underwent resection of a primary non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [M-RATS 96/101 (95%); U-RATS =60/101 (59%); P<0.0001]. The main type of anatomic resection was lobectomy for the multiport group, and segmentectomy for the U-RATS group. In the M-RATS group, only one anatomical segmentectomy was performed, while the U-RATS group had twenty-four (24%) segmentectomies (P=0.0006). All M-RATS and U-RATS surgical specimens had negative resection margins (R0) and contained an equivalent median number of lymph nodes available for pathologic analysis [M-RATS =11 (range, 5-54); U-RATS =15 (range, 0-41); P=0.87]. Conversion rate to thoracotomy was zero in the U-RATS group and low in M-RATS [M-RATS =2/101 (2%); U-RATS =0/101; P=0.19]. Median operative time was also statistically different [M-RATS =150 (range, 60-300) minutes; U-RATS =136 (range, 30-308) minutes; P=0.0001]. Median length of stay was significantly lower in U-RATS group at four days [M-RATS =5 (range, 2-31) days; U-RATS =4 (range, 1-18) days; P<0.0001]. Rate of complications and 30-day mortality was low in both groups.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
U-RATS is feasible and safe for anatomic lung resections and comparable to the multiport conventional approach regarding surgical outcomes. Given the similarity of the technique to uniportal VATS, it presents the potential to convert minimally invasive thoracic surgeons to a robotic-assisted approach.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37035654
doi: 10.21037/acs-2022-urats-27
pii: acs-12-02-102
pmc: PMC10080339
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
102-109Informations de copyright
2023 Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2023 Mar 31;12(2):130-132
pubmed: 37035649
J Thorac Dis. 2014 Oct;6(Suppl 6):S604-17
pubmed: 25379198
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2022 Aug 3;62(3):
pubmed: 35951763
Front Surg. 2022 Mar 04;9:840070
pubmed: 35310438
Ann Transl Med. 2020 Jun;8(12):775
pubmed: 32647700
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010 Nov;140(5):954
pubmed: 20951245
Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2021 Mar;10(3):1571-1575
pubmed: 33889530
J Thorac Dis. 2022 Aug;14(8):2970-2976
pubmed: 36071757
Front Surg. 2021 Feb 22;8:597416
pubmed: 33693026
Ann Surg. 2023 Mar 1;277(3):528-533
pubmed: 34534988
Front Surg. 2022 Sep 23;9:1005860
pubmed: 36329983
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017 Sep;154(3):1065-1069
pubmed: 28623099
Ann Thorac Surg. 2012 May;93(5):1598-604; discussion 1604-5
pubmed: 22440364
J Clin Med. 2021 Apr 14;10(8):
pubmed: 33920023
Innovations (Phila). 2020 Nov/Dec;15(6):532-540
pubmed: 32988258