Perioperative outcomes of video- and robot-assisted segmentectomies.

OBJECTIVE: Video-assisted thoracic surgery appears to be technically difficult for segmentectomy. Conversely, robotic surgery could facilitate the performance of segmentectomy. The aim of this study was to compare the early results of video- and robot-assisted segmentectomies. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively on videothoracoscopy from 2010 and on robotic procedures from 2013. Fifty-one patients who were candidates for minimally invasive segmentectomy were included in the study. Perioperative outcomes of video-assisted and robotic segmentectomies were compared. RESULTS: The minimally invasive segmentectomies included 32 video- and 16 robot-assisted procedures; 3 segmentectomies (2 video-assisted and 1 robot-assisted) were converted to lobectomies. Four conversions to thoracotomy were necessary for anatomical reason or arterial injury, with no uncontrolled bleeding in the robotic arm. There were 7 benign or infectious lesions, 9 pre-invasive lesions, 25 lung cancers, and 10 metastatic diseases. Patient characteristics, type of segment, conversion to thoracotomy, conversion to lobectomy, operative time, postoperative complications, chest tube duration, postoperative stay, and histology were similar in the video and robot groups. Estimated blood loss was significantly higher in the video group (100 vs. 50 mL, p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: The morbidity rate of minimally invasive segmentectomy was low. The short-term results of video-assisted and robot-assisted segmentectomies were similar, and more data are required to show any advantages between the two techniques. Long-term oncologic outcomes are necessary to evaluate these new surgical practices.

Robot-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery versus Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery for Lung Lobectomy: Can a Robotic Approach Improve Short-Term Outcomes and Operative Safety?

Background Minimally invasive surgery has been recently recommended for treatment of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Despite the recent increase of robotic surgery, the place and potential advantages of the robot in thoracic surgery has not been well defined until now. Methods We reviewed our prospective database for retrospective comparison of our first 28 video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomies (V group) and our first 28 robotic lobectomies (R group). Results No significant difference was shown in median operative time between the two groups (185 vs. 190 minutes, p = 0.56). Median preincision time was significantly longer in the R group (80 vs. 60 minutes, P < 0.0001). The rate of emergency conversion for uncontrolled bleeding was lower in the R group (one vs. four). Median length of stay was comparable (6 days in the R group vs. 7 days in the V group, p = 0.4) with no significant difference in the rate of postoperative complications (eight Grade I in both groups, four Grade III or IV in the V group vs. six in the R group, according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, p = 0.93). No postoperative cardiac morbidity was observed in the R group. Median drainage time was similar (5 days, p = 0.78), with a rate of prolonged air leak slightly higher in the R group (25 vs. 17.8%, p = 0.74). Conclusion Perioperative outcomes are similar even in the learning period but robotic approach seems to offer more operative safety with fewer conversions for uncontrolled bleeding.