Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
World Journal of Surgical Oncology
Published in: World Journal of Surgical Oncology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Review

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

Authors: Shiyou Wei, Minghao Chen, Nan Chen, Lunxu Liu

Published in: World Journal of Surgical Oncology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Literature
1.
Detterbeck FC, Lewis SZ, Diekemper R, et al. Executive summary: diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2013;143:7S–37S.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Kirby TJ, Mack MJ, Landreneau RJ, et al. Initial experience with video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 1993;56:1248–52. discussion 52–3.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Walker WS, Carnochan FM, Pugh GC. Thoracoscopic pulmonary lobectomy. Early operative experience and preliminary clinical results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1993;106:1111–7.PubMed
4.
Yan TD, Black D, Bannon PG, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized trials on safety and efficacy of video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2553–62.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Cao C, Manganas C, Ang SC, et al. A meta-analysis of unmatched and matched patients comparing video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy and conventional open lobectomy. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;1:16–23.PubMedPubMedCentral
6.
7.
Arad T, Levi-Faber D, Nir RR, et al. The learning curve of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for lung lobectomy—a single Israeli center experience. Harefuah. 2012;151:261–5. 320.PubMed
8.
Park BJ, Flores RM, Rusch VW. Robotic assistance for video-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy: technique and initial results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;131:54–9.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Gharagozloo F, Margolis M, Tempesta B, et al. Robot-assisted lobectomy for early-stage lung cancer: report of 100 consecutive cases. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88:380–4.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Augustin F, Bodner J, Wykypiel H, et al. Initial experience with robotic lung lobectomy: report of two different approaches. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:108–13.CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Veronesi G, Galetta D, Maisonneuve P, et al. Four-arm robotic lobectomy for the treatment of early-stage lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;140:19–25.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Skylizard L, et al. Initial consecutive experience of completely portal robotic pulmonary resection with 4 arms. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:740–6.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Oh DS, Cho I, Karamian B, et al. Early adoption of robotic pulmonary lobectomy: feasibility and initial outcomes. Am Surg. 2013;79:1075–80.PubMed
15.
Melfi FM, Fanucchi O, Davini F, et al. VATS-based approach for robotic lobectomy. Thorac Surg Clin. 2014;24:143–9. v.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Veronesi G. Robotic thoracic surgery: technical considerations and learning curve for pulmonary resection. Thorac Surg Clin. 2014;24:135–41. v.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Jang HJ, Lee HS, Park SY, et al. Comparison of the early robot-assisted lobectomy experience to video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy for lung cancer: a single-institution case series matching study. Innovations (Phila). 2011;6:305–10.CrossRef
19.
Lee HS, Jang HJ. Thoracoscopic mediastinal lymph node dissection for lung cancer. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;24:131–41.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Augustin F, Bodner J, Maier H, et al. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive vs. thoracoscopic lung lobectomy: comparison of perioperative results in a learning curve setting. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2013;398:895–901.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Adams RD, Bolton WD, Stephenson JE, et al. Initial multicenter community robotic lobectomy experience: comparisons to a national database. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97:1893–8. discussion 1899–1900.CrossRefPubMed
22.
He Y, Coonar A, Gelvez-Zapata S, et al. Evaluation of a robot-assisted video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery programme. Exp Ther Med. 2014;7:873–6.PubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Kent M, Wang T, Whyte R, et al. Open, video-assisted thoracic surgery, and robotic lobectomy: review of a national database. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97:236–42. discussion 242–4.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Paul S, Jalbert J, Isaacs AJ, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robotic-assisted vs thoracoscopic lobectomy. Chest. 2014;146:1505–12.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Swanson SJ, Miller DL, McKenna Jr RJ, et al. Comparing robot-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy with conventional video-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy and wedge resection: results from a multihospital database (Premier). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147:929–37.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Lee BE, Shapiro M, Rutledge JR, et al. Nodal upstaging in robotic and video assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy for clinical N0 lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100:229–33. discussion 233–4.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Mahieu J, Rinieri P, Bubenheim M, et al. Robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for lung lobectomy: can a robotic approach improve short-term outcomes and operative safety? Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;4:354–62.
28.
Yang HX, Woo KM, Sima CS, et al. Long-term survival based on the surgical approach to lobectomy for clinical stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer: comparison of robotic, video-assisted thoracic surgery, and thoracotomy lobectomy. Ann Surg. 2017;265:431–7.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Louie BE, Wilson JL, Kim S, et al. Comparison of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery and robotic approaches for clinical stage I and stage II non-small cell lung cancer using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102:917–24.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Melfi FM, Menconi GF, Mariani AM, et al. Early experience with robotic technology for thoracoscopic surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2002;21:864–8.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Cao C, Manganas C, Ang SC, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on pulmonary resections by robotic video-assisted thoracic surgery. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;1:3–10.PubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Ye X, Xie L, Chen G, et al. Robotic thoracic surgery versus video-assisted thoracic surgery for lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015;21:409–14.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Park BJ, Flores RM. Cost comparison of robotic, video-assisted thoracic surgery and thoracotomy approaches to pulmonary lobectomy. Thorac Surg Clin. 2008;18:297–300. vii.CrossRefPubMed
34.
35.
Deen SA, Wilson JL, Wilshire CL, et al. Defining the cost of care for lobectomy and segmentectomy: a comparison of open, video-assisted thoracoscopic, and robotic approaches. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97:1000–7.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Turchetti G, Palla I, Pierotti F, et al. Economic evaluation of da Vinci-assisted robotic surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:598–606.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Wei B, D'Amico TA. Thoracoscopic versus robotic approaches: advantages and disadvantages. Thorac Surg Clin. 2014;24:177–88. vi.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Kajiwara N, Patrick Barron J, Kato Y, et al. Cost-benefit performance of robotic surgery compared with video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery under the Japanese National Health Insurance System. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;21:95–101.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
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
Authors
Shiyou Wei
Minghao Chen
Nan Chen
Lunxu Liu
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7819
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-017-1168-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

World Journal of Surgical Oncology 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research

Are there intra-operative hemodynamic differences between the Coliseum and closed HIPEC techniques in the treatment of peritoneal metastasis? A retrospective cohort study

Case Report

The paradigm of tumor shrinkage and rapid liver remnant hypertrophy for conversion of initially unresectable colorectal liver metastasis: a case report and literature review

Research

Correlation between lymphatic endothelial markers and lymph node status or N-staging of colorectal cancer

Case Report

Malignant acanthosis nigricans: an early diagnostic clue for gastric adenocarcinoma

Research

Surgical treatment of upper cervical spine metastases: a retrospective study of 39 cases

Research

Prognostic factors for gastrectomy in elderly patients with gastric cancer