RÉSUMÉ
@#Objective To analyze the perioperative outcome of consecutive 1 000 patients undergoing robotic lung resection and summarize surgical experience. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 1 000 patients undergoing robotic lung resection between May 2009 and June 2018 in Shanghai Lung Tumor Clinical Medical Center. Robotic lobectomy was compared with traditional VATS over the same period using a propensity-matched analysis. There were 327 males and 673 females at average age of 56.21±11.33 years. Lobectomy was performed in 866 patients (11 bilobectomy included), sublobar resection was performed in 129 patients, sleeve lobectomy was performed in the remaining 5 patients. Pathology was as follows: adenocarcinoma in 875 patients, squamous carcinoma in 52 patients, benign tumors in 73 patients. 90.5% of the primary lung cancer were in stage Ⅰ. Results The mean operative time was 90.31±19.70 min; 95.70% of patients’ estimated blood loss was less than 100 ml. Conversion rate to thoracotomy was 0.90% (9 patients) . The average lymph node station and count harvested was 5.59±1.36 and 9.60±3.21 respectively. The mean volume of chest tube drainage on the first postoperative day was 229.19±131.67 ml. Median chest tube time was 3.85±1.43 d. There was 1 in-hospital death due to pulmonary embolism. A total of 189 patients had postoperative complications (18.90%) whose majority was postoperative air leak more than 5 days. The mean overall hospital costs was 92 710.53±12 367.23 Yuan. Compared with VATS, RATS was associated with significant reduction in intraoperative blood loss, time to chest tube removal and postoperative hospital stay. The operative time, conversion rate, lymph nodes removed, morbidity and mortality were similar between the two groups. Conclusion Robotic-assisted lung resection is safe and effective with low conversion rate and less complications, and it can overcome many disadvantages of traditional VATS.
RÉSUMÉ
@#Objective To investigate the perioperative outcome of robot-assisted pulmonary lobectomy in treating pathological stage Ⅰ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 333 consecutive p-T1 NSCLC patients who underwent robotic-assisted pulmonary lobectomy in our hospital between May 2013 and April 2016. There were 231 females (69.4%) and 102 males (30.6%) aged from 20–76 (55.01±10.46) years. Cancer was located in the left upper lobectomy in 37 (11.1%) patients, left lower lobectomy in 71 (21.3%) patients, right upper lobectomy in 105 (31.5%) patients, right middle lobectomy in 32 (9.6%) patients, right lower lobectomy in 88 (26.4%) patients. Adenocarcinoma was confirmed in 330 (99.1%) patients and squamous cell cancer was confirmed in 3 (0.9%) patients. Results Total operative time was 46–300 (91.51±30.80) min. Estimated intraoperative blood loss was 0–100 ml in 319 patients (95.8%), 101–400 ml in 12 patients (3.6%), >400 ml in 2 patients (0.6%). Four patients were converted to thoracotomy, including 2 patients due to pulmonary artery branch bleeding and 2 due to pleural adhesion.No patient died within 30 days after surgery. And no perioperative blood transfusion occurred. Postoperative day 1 drain was 0–960 (231.39±141.87) ml. Chest drain time was 2–12 (3.96±1.52) d. And no patient was discharged with chest tube. Length of hospital stay after surgery was 2–12 (4.96±1.51) d. Persistent air leak was in 12 patients over 7 days. No readmission happened within 30 days. All patients underwent lymph node sampling or dissection with 2–9 (5.69±1.46) groups and 3–21 (9.80±3.43) lymph nodes harvested. Total intraoperative cost was 60 389.66–134 401.65 (93 809.23±13 371.26) yuan. Conclusion Robot-assisted pulmonary lobectomy is safe and effective in treating p-Stage Ⅰ NSCLC, and could be an important supplement to conventional VATS. Regarding to cost, it is relatively more expensive compared with conventional VATS. RATS will be widely used and make a great change in pulmonary surgery with the progressive development of surgical robot.
RÉSUMÉ
PURPOSE: This study compared the perioperative and pathologic outcomes between an extralevator abdominoperineal resection (APR) in the prone position and a conventional APR. METHODS: Between September 2011 and March 2014, an extralevator APR in the prone position was performed on 13 patients with rectal cancer and a conventional APR on 26 such patients. Patients' demographics and perioperative and pathologic outcomes were obtained from the colorectal cancer database and electronic medical charts. RESULTS: Age and preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level were significantly different between the conventional and the extralevator APR in the prone position (median age, 65 years vs. 55 years [P = 0.001]; median preoperative CEA level, 4.94 ng/mL vs. 1.81 ng/mL [P = 0.011]). For perioperative outcomes, 1 (3.8%) intraoperative bowel perforation occurred in the conventional APR group and 2 (15.3%) in the extralevator APR group. In the conventional and extralevator APR groups, 12 (46.2%) and 6 patients (46.2%) had postoperative complications, and 8 (66.7%) and 2 patients (33.4%) had major complications (Clavien-Dindo III/IV), respectively. The circumferential resection margin involvement rate was higher in the extralevator APR group compared with the conventional APR group (3 of 13 [23.1%] vs. 3 of 26 [11.5%]). CONCLUSION: The extralevator APR in the prone position for patients with advanced low rectal cancer has no advantages in perioperative and pathologic outcomes over a conventional APR for such patients. However, through early experience with a new surgical technique, we identified various reasons for the lack of favorable outcomes and expect sufficient experience to produce better peri- or postoperative outcomes.