Uniportal pure robotic-assisted thoracic surgery-technical aspects, tips and tricks.

The uniportal access for robotic thoracic surgery presents itself as a natural evolution of minimally invasive thoracic surgery (MITS). It was developed by surgeons who pioneered the uniportal video-assisted thoracic surgery (U-VATS) in all its aspects following the same principles of a single incision by using robotic technology. The robotic surgery was initially started as a hybrid procedure with the use of thoracoscopic staplers by the assistant. However, due to the evolution of robotic modern platforms, the staplers can be nowadays controlled by the main surgeon from the console. The pure uniportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (U-RATS) is defined as the robotic thoracic surgery performed through a single intercostal (ic) incision, without rib spreading, using the robotic camera, robotic dissecting instruments and robotic staplers. There are presented the advantages, difficulties, the general aspects and specific considerations for U-RATS. For safety reasons, the authors recommend the transition from multiportal-RATS through biportal-RATS to U-RATS. The use of robotic dissection and staplers through a single incision and the rapid undocking with easy emergent conversion when needed (either to U-VATS or to thoracotomy) are safety advantages over multi-port RATS that cannot be overlooked, offering great comfort to the surgeon and quick and smooth recovery to the patient.

Comparison of uniportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgery pulmonary anatomic resections with multiport robotic-assisted thoracic surgery: a multicenter study of the European experience.

Background: 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: 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: 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: 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.

Uniportal robotic versus thoracoscopic assisted surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis of the initial 100 cases.

Background: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is becoming the standard of care for anatomic lung resections. The advantages of the uniportal approach compared to the conventional multiple incision approach, multiportal video-assisted thoracic surgery (mVATS) and multiportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (mRATS), have been previously described. However, no research studies comparing early outcomes between uniportal video-assisted thoracic surgery (uVATS) and uniportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (uRATS) have been reported. Methods: Anatomic lung resections performed by uVATS and uRATS from August 2010 to October 2022 were enrolled. Early outcomes were compared after propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis by applying a multivariable logistic regression model including gender, age, smoking habit, forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF), pleural adhesions and tumor size. Results: A total of 200 patients who underwent anatomic lung resections by the same surgeon were recruited in this study, including the initial 100 uVATS patients and the initial 100 uRATS patients. After PSM analysis, each group included 68 patients. The comparison of the two groups showed no significant differences according to the TNM stage in patients with lung cancer, surgical time, intraoperative complications, conversion, number of nodal stations explored, opioid usage, prolonged air leak, length of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospitalization, reintervention and mortality. However, there were significant differences concerning the histology and type of resection (anatomic segmentectomies, the proportion of complex segmentectomies and the sleeve technique were significantly higher in the uRATS group), number of resected lymph nodes (significantly higher in the uRATS group), postoperative complications and duration of chest drain (significantly lower in the uRATS group). Conclusions: Judging from the short-term outcomes, our results confirm the safety, feasibility and efficacy of uRATS as a new minimally invasive technique that combines the benefits of the uniportal method and robotic systems.