Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 10/2017

01-10-2017

Robotic thoracic surgery results in shorter hospital stay and lower postoperative pain compared to open thoracotomy: a matched pairs analysis

Authors: Christopher Darr, Danjouma Cheufou, Gerhard Weinreich, Thomas Hachenberg, Clemens Aigner, Sandra Kampe

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 10/2017

Login to get access

Background

To evaluate postoperative pain intensity and length of hospital stay after open or robotic thoracic surgery in a standardized postoperative pain therapy setting.

Methods

In the present retrospective (oberservation period: January 2015 until January 2016) study we matched data of 38 patients with robotic thoracic surgery ("robotic patients"; age: 62.2 years, male gender: 42.1%) with 38 patients with open thoracic surgery ("open patients"; age: 62.5 years, male gender: 42.1%). Power analysis indicated that 36 patients per group would be required.

Results

68% of all patients received an epidural catheter, and 32% a systemic opioid based analgesia. Postoperative pain intensity in "robotic patients" was lower at rest on postoperative day 3–5 compared to "open patients" (NRS POD 3 robotic surgery 0.5±1.0 vs. open surgery 1.0±1.6, p = 0.04; NRS POD 4 robotic surgery 0,5 ± 1.0 vs. open surgery 1.1±1.3, p=0.04; NRS POD 5 robotic surgery 0.7 ± 1.0 vs. open surgery 1.5±1.5, p=0.003). Chest tube duration was shorter in "robotic patients" (2.9 ± 2.0 days vs. 4.9 ± 2.2 days; p < 0.001). Moreover, length of hospital stay was shorter in "robotic patients" than in "open patients" (6.9 days vs. 8.0 days; p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in postoperative opioid consumption between the groups. Nearly 95% of patients were discharged home with an oral opioid in both groups.

Conclusion

Patients after robotic pulmonary resection experience lower postoperative pain and are discharged earlier from hospital than patients after open thoracic surgery. Study limitations: The study design is retrospectively.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Gottschalk A, Cohen SP, Yang S, Ochroch EA (2006) Preventing and treating pain after thoracic surgery. Anesthesiology 104:594–600CrossRefPubMed Gottschalk A, Cohen SP, Yang S, Ochroch EA (2006) Preventing and treating pain after thoracic surgery. Anesthesiology 104:594–600CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Meierhenrich R, Hock D, Kühn S, Baltes E, Muehling B, Muche R, Georgieff M, Gorsewski G (2011) Analgesia and pulmonary function after lung surgery: is a single intercostal nerve block plus patient-controlled intravenous morphine as effective as patient-controlled epidural anaesthesia? A randomised non-inferiority clinical trial. Br J Anaesth 106:580–589CrossRefPubMed Meierhenrich R, Hock D, Kühn S, Baltes E, Muehling B, Muche R, Georgieff M, Gorsewski G (2011) Analgesia and pulmonary function after lung surgery: is a single intercostal nerve block plus patient-controlled intravenous morphine as effective as patient-controlled epidural anaesthesia? A randomised non-inferiority clinical trial. Br J Anaesth 106:580–589CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Joshi GP, Bonnet F, Shah R, Wilkinson RC, Camu F, Fischer B, Neugebauer EA, Rawal N, Schug SA, Simanski C, Kehlet H (2008) A systematic review of randomised trials evaluating regional techniques for postthoracotomy analgesia. Anesth Analg 107:1026–1040CrossRefPubMed Joshi GP, Bonnet F, Shah R, Wilkinson RC, Camu F, Fischer B, Neugebauer EA, Rawal N, Schug SA, Simanski C, Kehlet H (2008) A systematic review of randomised trials evaluating regional techniques for postthoracotomy analgesia. Anesth Analg 107:1026–1040CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Davies RG, Myles PS, Graham JM (2006) A comparison of the analgesic efficacy and side effects of paravertebral vs epidural blockade for thoracotomy–a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Br J Anaesth 96:418–426CrossRefPubMed Davies RG, Myles PS, Graham JM (2006) A comparison of the analgesic efficacy and side effects of paravertebral vs epidural blockade for thoracotomy–a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Br J Anaesth 96:418–426CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Veronesi G, Galetta D, Maisonneuve P, Melfi F, Schmid RA, Borri A, Vannucci F, Spaggiari L (2010) Four-arm robotic lobectomy for the treatment of early-stage lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 140:19–25CrossRefPubMed Veronesi G, Galetta D, Maisonneuve P, Melfi F, Schmid RA, Borri A, Vannucci F, Spaggiari L (2010) Four-arm robotic lobectomy for the treatment of early-stage lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 140:19–25CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Veronesi G (2015) Robotic lobectomy and segmentectomy for lung cancer: results and operating technique. J Thorac Dis 7:122–130 Veronesi G (2015) Robotic lobectomy and segmentectomy for lung cancer: results and operating technique. J Thorac Dis 7:122–130
7.
go back to reference Paul S, Jalbert J, Isaacs AJ, Altorki NK, Isom OW, Sedrakyan A (2014) Comparative effectiveness of robotic-assisted vs thoracoscopic lobectomy. Chest 146:1505–1512CrossRefPubMed Paul S, Jalbert J, Isaacs AJ, Altorki NK, Isom OW, Sedrakyan A (2014) Comparative effectiveness of robotic-assisted vs thoracoscopic lobectomy. Chest 146:1505–1512CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Park BJ (2014) Robotic lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer: long-term oncologic results. Thorac Surg Clin 24:157–162CrossRefPubMed Park BJ (2014) Robotic lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer: long-term oncologic results. Thorac Surg Clin 24:157–162CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
go back to reference Turchetti G, Pierotti F, Palla I, Manetti S, Freschi C, Ferrari V, Cuschieri A (2016) Comparative health technology assessment of robotic-assisted, direct manual laparoscopic and open surgery: a prospective study. Surg Endosc. DOI:10.1007/s00464-016-4991-x PubMedPubMedCentral Turchetti G, Pierotti F, Palla I, Manetti S, Freschi C, Ferrari V, Cuschieri A (2016) Comparative health technology assessment of robotic-assisted, direct manual laparoscopic and open surgery: a prospective study. Surg Endosc. DOI:10.​1007/​s00464-016-4991-x PubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Kampe S, Lüttecke D, Wolter K, Cheufou D, Stamatis G (2014) Minimal incidence of chronic and neuropathic postthoracotomy pain after anteroaxillary thoracotomy with consequent systemic pain therapy. Eur J Anaesthesiol 31:1–3 Kampe S, Lüttecke D, Wolter K, Cheufou D, Stamatis G (2014) Minimal incidence of chronic and neuropathic postthoracotomy pain after anteroaxillary thoracotomy with consequent systemic pain therapy. Eur J Anaesthesiol 31:1–3
12.
go back to reference Kampe S, Weinreich G, Darr C, Stamatis G, Hachenberg T (2015) Controlled-release oxycodone as “gold standard” for postoperative pain therapy in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracic surgery or thoracoscopy: a retrospective evaluation of 788 cases. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. DOI:10.1055/s-0034-1396682 PubMed Kampe S, Weinreich G, Darr C, Stamatis G, Hachenberg T (2015) Controlled-release oxycodone as “gold standard” for postoperative pain therapy in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracic surgery or thoracoscopy: a retrospective evaluation of 788 cases. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. DOI:10.​1055/​s-0034-1396682 PubMed
13.
go back to reference Kampe S, Weinreich G, Darr C, Eicker K, Stamatis G, Hachenberg T (2014) The impact of epidural analgesia compared to systemic opioid-based analgesia with regard to length of hospital stay and recovery of bowel function: retrospective evaluation of 1555 patients undergoing thoracotomy. J Cardiothorac Surg. DOI:10.1186/s13019-014-0175-8 PubMedPubMedCentral Kampe S, Weinreich G, Darr C, Eicker K, Stamatis G, Hachenberg T (2014) The impact of epidural analgesia compared to systemic opioid-based analgesia with regard to length of hospital stay and recovery of bowel function: retrospective evaluation of 1555 patients undergoing thoracotomy. J Cardiothorac Surg. DOI:10.​1186/​s13019-014-0175-8 PubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Veronesi G, Agoglia BG, Melfi F, Maisonneuve P, Bertolotti R, Bianchi PP, Rocco B, Borri A, Gasparri R, Spaggiari L (2011) Experience with robotic lobectomy for lung cancer. Innovations 6(6):355–360. Doi:10.1097/IMI.0b013e3182490093 PubMed Veronesi G, Agoglia BG, Melfi F, Maisonneuve P, Bertolotti R, Bianchi PP, Rocco B, Borri A, Gasparri R, Spaggiari L (2011) Experience with robotic lobectomy for lung cancer. Innovations 6(6):355–360. Doi:10.​1097/​IMI.​0b013e3182490093​ PubMed
18.
go back to reference Boffa DJ, Kosinski AS, Paul S, Mitchell JD, Onaitis M (2012) Lymph node evaluation by open or video-assisted approaches in 11,500 anatomic lung cancer resections. Ann Thorac Surg 94:347–353CrossRefPubMed Boffa DJ, Kosinski AS, Paul S, Mitchell JD, Onaitis M (2012) Lymph node evaluation by open or video-assisted approaches in 11,500 anatomic lung cancer resections. Ann Thorac Surg 94:347–353CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Bao F, Zhang C, Yang Y, He Z, Wang L, Hu J (2016) Comparison of robotic and video-assisted thoracic surgery for lung cancer: a propensity-matched analysis. J Thorac Dis. DOI:10.21037/jtd.2016.05.99 Bao F, Zhang C, Yang Y, He Z, Wang L, Hu J (2016) Comparison of robotic and video-assisted thoracic surgery for lung cancer: a propensity-matched analysis. J Thorac Dis. DOI:10.​21037/​jtd.​2016.​05.​99
20.
go back to reference Park BJ, Flores RM, Rusch VW (2006) Robotic assistance for video-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy: technique and initial results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131:54–59CrossRefPubMed Park BJ, Flores RM, Rusch VW (2006) Robotic assistance for video-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy: technique and initial results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131:54–59CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Robotic thoracic surgery results in shorter hospital stay and lower postoperative pain compared to open thoracotomy: a matched pairs analysis
Authors
Christopher Darr
Danjouma Cheufou
Gerhard Weinreich
Thomas Hachenberg
Clemens Aigner
Sandra Kampe
Publication date
01-10-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 10/2017
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5464-6

Other articles of this Issue 10/2017

Surgical Endoscopy 10/2017 Go to the issue