RESUMO
Post-operative quality of life (QOL) has become crucial in choosing operative approaches in thoracic surgery. However, compared to VATS and thoracotomy, QOL results post-RATS are limited. We compared QOL before and after RATS and between RATS, VATS, and thoracotomy. We conducted a retrospective review of lung cancer surgical patients from 2015 to 2020. Patients completed validated EORTC QOL questionnaires (QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13). Results were analysed using the EORTC Scoring Guide, with statistical analysis. A total of 47 (94%) pre- and post-RATS questionnaires were returned. Forty-two patients underwent anatomical lung resections. In addition, 80% of patients experienced uncomplicated recovery. All global and functional QOL domains improved post-operatively, as did most symptoms (13/19). Only four symptoms worsened, including dyspnoea (p = 0.017), with two symptoms unchanged. Of the 148 returned questionnaires for all approaches (open-22/VATS-79/RATS-47), over 70% showed a high pre-operative performance status. Most patients underwent anatomical lung resection, with only VATS patients requiring conversion (n = 6). Complications were slightly higher in RATS, with one patient requiring re-intubation. RATS patients demonstrated the highest global and functional QOL. Physical QOL was lowest after thoracotomy (p = 0.002). RATS patients reported the fewest symptoms, including dyspnoea (p = 0.046), fatigue (p < 0.001), and pain (p = 0.264). Overall, RATS results in a significantly better post-operative QOL and should be considered the preferred surgical approach for lung cancer patients.
RESUMO
This study compares long-term outcomes in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) and robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); all consecutive patients who underwent RATS or VATS lobectomy for NSCLC between July 2015 and December 2021 in our center were enrolled in a single-center prospective study. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and recurrence rate. The secondary outcomes were complication rate, length of hospitalization (LOS), duration of chest tubes (LOD), and number of lymph node stations harvested. A total of 619 patients treated with RATS (n = 403) or VATS (n = 216) were included in the study. There was no significant difference in OS between the RATS and VATS groups (3-year OS: 75.9% vs. 82.3%; 5-year OS: 70.5% vs. 68.5%; p = 0.637). There was a statistically significant difference in DFS between the RATS and VATS groups (3-year DFS: 92.4% vs. 81.2%; 5-year DFS: 90.3% vs. 77.6%; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis according to the pathological stage also demonstrated a significant difference between RATS and VATS groups in DFS in stage I (3-year DFS: 94.4% vs. 88.9%; 5-year DFS: 91.8% vs. 85.2%; p = 0.037) and stage III disease (3-year DFS: 82.4% vs. 51.1%; 5-year DFS: 82.4% vs. 37.7%; p = 0.024). Moreover, in multivariable Cox regression analysis, the surgical approach was significantly associated with DFS, with an HR of 0.46 (95% CI 0.27-0.78, p = 0.004) for RATS compared to VATS. VATS lobectomy was associated with a significantly higher recurrence rate compared to RATS (21.8% vs. 6.2%; p < 0.001). LOS and LOD, as well as complication rate and in-hospital and 30-day mortality, were similar among the groups. RATS lobectomy was associated with a higher number of lymph node stations harvested compared to VATS (7 [IQR:2] vs. 5 [IQR:2]; p < 0.001). In conclusion, in our series, RATS lobectomy for lung cancer led to a significantly higher DFS and significantly lower recurrence rate compared to the VATS approach. RATS may allow more extensive nodal dissection, and this could translate into reduced recurrence.
RESUMO
Robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) has gained popularity for the treatment of lung cancer, but its quality outcome measures are still being evaluated. The purpose of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of lung cancer resection using RATS versus video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS). To achieve this aim, we conducted a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent lung cancer surgery between July 2015 and December 2020. A propensity-matched analysis was performed based on patients' performance status, forced expiratory volume in 1 s% of predicted, diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide% of predicted, and surgical procedure (lobectomy or segmentectomy). Following propensity matching, a total of 613 patients were included in the analysis, of which 328 underwent RATS, and 285 underwent VATS, with satisfactory performance indicators. The results of the analysis indicated that RATS had a significantly longer operating time than VATS (132.4 ± 37.3 versus 122.4 ± 27.7 min; mean difference of 10 min 95% CI [confidence interval], 4.2 to 15.9 min; p = 0.001). On the other hand, VATS had a significantly higher estimated blood loss compared to RATS (169.7 ± 237.2 versus 82.2 ± 195.4 mL; mean difference of 87.5 mL; 95% CI, 48.1 to 126.8 mL; p < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the duration of chest tubes, length of hospital stay, low- and high-grade complications, as well as readmissions and mortality within 30 days after surgery. Moreover, the number of dissected lymph-node stations was significantly higher with VATS than RATS (5.9 ± 1.5 versus 4.8 ± 2.2; mean difference of 1.2; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.5; p = 0.001). Nonetheless, the percentage of patients who were upstaged after histopathological analysis of the resected lymph nodes was similar between the two groups. In conclusion, RATS and VATS yielded comparable results for most of the short-term outcomes assessed. Further research is needed to validate the implementation of RATS and identify its potential benefits over VATS.
RESUMO
Introduction: Robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) is an alternative to video-assessed thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for the treatment of lung cancer but concern exists regarding the high associated costs. The COVID-19 pandemic added further financial pressure to healthcare systems. This study investigated the impact of the learning curve on the cost-effectiveness of RATS lung resection and the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on a RATS program. Methods: Patients undergoing RATS lung resection between January 2017 and December 2020 were prospectively followed. A matched cohort of VATS cases were analyzed in parallel. The first 100 and most recent 100 RATS cases performed at our institution were compared to assess the learning curve. Cases performed before and after March 2020 were compared to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. A comprehensive cost analysis of multiple theatre and postoperative data points was performed using Stata statistics package (v14.2). Results: 365 RATS cases were included. Median cost per procedure was £7,167 and theatre cost accounted for 70%. Major contributing factors to overall cost were operative time and postoperative length of stay. Cost per case was £640 less after passing the learning curve (p < 0.001) largely due to reduced operative time. Comparison of a post-learning curve RATS subgroup matched to 101 VATS cases revealed no significant difference in theatre costs between the two techniques. Overall cost of RATS lung resections performed before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were not significantly different. However, theatre costs were significantly cheaper (£620/case; p < 0.001) and postoperative costs were significantly more expensive (£1,221/case; p = 0.018) during the pandemic. Discussion: Passing the learning curve is associated with a significant reduction in the theatre costs associated with RATS lung resection and is comparable with the cost of VATS. This study may underestimate the true cost benefit of passing the learning curve due to the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on theatre costs. The COVID-19 pandemic made RATS lung resection more expensive due to prolonged hospital stay and increased readmission rate. The present study offers some evidence that the initial increased costs associated with RATS lung resection may be gradually offset as a program progresses.
