Early adoption of robotic lung resection in an established video assisted thoracic surgery practice

IF 1.4 Q3 SURGERY Surgery open science Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1016/j.sopen.2024.07.004
{"title":"Early adoption of robotic lung resection in an established video assisted thoracic surgery practice","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.sopen.2024.07.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Reported advantages to robotic thoracic surgery include shorter length of stay (LOS), improved lymphadenectomy, and decreased complications. It is uncertain if these benefits occur when introducing robotics into a well-established video-assisted thoracoscopy (VATS) practice. We compared the two approaches to investigate these advantages.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>IRB approval was obtained for this project. Patients who underwent segmentectomy or lobectomy from May 2016–December 2018 were propensity-matched 2: 1 (VATS: robotic) and compared using weighted logistic regression with age, gender, Charlson Comorbidity Index, surgery type, stage, Exparel, and epidural as covariates. Complication rates, operation times, number of sampled lymph nodes, pain level, disposition, and LOS were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum and with Rao-Scott Chi-squared tests.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>213 patients (142 VATS and 71 robot) were matched. Duration of robotic cases was longer than VATS (median 186 min (IQR 78) vs. 164 min (IQR 78.75); <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). Significantly more lymph nodes (median 11 (IQR 7.50) vs. 8 (IQR 7.00); <em>p</em> = 0.004) and stations were sampled (median 4 (IQR 2.00) vs. 3 (IQR 1.00); <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001) with the robot. Interestingly, robotic resections had higher 72-hour pain scores (median 3 (IQR 3.25) vs. 2 (IQR 3.50); <em>p</em> = 0.04) and 48-hour opioid usage (median 37.50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) (IQR 45.50) vs. 22.50 MME (IQR 37.50); <em>p</em> = 0.01). Morbidity, LOS, and disposition were similar (all <em>p</em> &gt; 0.05).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The robotic approach facilitates better lymph node sampling, even in an established VATS practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74892,"journal":{"name":"Surgery open science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589845024001027/pdfft?md5=dcac75967ffdd2b466f25ece1122c1dc&pid=1-s2.0-S2589845024001027-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery open science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589845024001027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Reported advantages to robotic thoracic surgery include shorter length of stay (LOS), improved lymphadenectomy, and decreased complications. It is uncertain if these benefits occur when introducing robotics into a well-established video-assisted thoracoscopy (VATS) practice. We compared the two approaches to investigate these advantages.

Materials and methods

IRB approval was obtained for this project. Patients who underwent segmentectomy or lobectomy from May 2016–December 2018 were propensity-matched 2: 1 (VATS: robotic) and compared using weighted logistic regression with age, gender, Charlson Comorbidity Index, surgery type, stage, Exparel, and epidural as covariates. Complication rates, operation times, number of sampled lymph nodes, pain level, disposition, and LOS were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum and with Rao-Scott Chi-squared tests.

Results

213 patients (142 VATS and 71 robot) were matched. Duration of robotic cases was longer than VATS (median 186 min (IQR 78) vs. 164 min (IQR 78.75); p < 0.001). Significantly more lymph nodes (median 11 (IQR 7.50) vs. 8 (IQR 7.00); p = 0.004) and stations were sampled (median 4 (IQR 2.00) vs. 3 (IQR 1.00); p < 0.001) with the robot. Interestingly, robotic resections had higher 72-hour pain scores (median 3 (IQR 3.25) vs. 2 (IQR 3.50); p = 0.04) and 48-hour opioid usage (median 37.50 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) (IQR 45.50) vs. 22.50 MME (IQR 37.50); p = 0.01). Morbidity, LOS, and disposition were similar (all p > 0.05).

Conclusions

The robotic approach facilitates better lymph node sampling, even in an established VATS practice.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在成熟的视频辅助胸外科实践中尽早采用机器人肺切除术
背景据报道,机器人胸腔镜手术的优点包括缩短住院时间(LOS)、改善淋巴腺切除术和减少并发症。目前还不确定在成熟的视频辅助胸腔镜(VATS)手术中引入机器人是否会带来这些优势。我们对这两种方法进行了比较,以研究这些优势。对 2016 年 5 月至 2018 年 12 月期间接受肺段切除术或肺叶切除术的患者进行 2:1(VATS:机器人)倾向匹配,并以年龄、性别、Charlson 合并指数、手术类型、分期、Exparel 和硬膜外作为协变量,使用加权逻辑回归进行比较。采用 Wilcoxon 秩和检验和 Rao-Scott Chi-squared 检验比较了并发症发生率、手术时间、取样淋巴结数量、疼痛程度、处置和住院时间。机器人手术的持续时间比 VATS 长(中位数 186 分钟(IQR 78)对 164 分钟(IQR 78.75);P < 0.001)。机器人取样的淋巴结(中位数 11 个(IQR 7.50)对 8 个(IQR 7.00);p = 0.004)和淋巴站(中位数 4 个(IQR 2.00)对 3 个(IQR 1.00);p <0.001)明显更多。有趣的是,机器人切除术的 72 小时疼痛评分(中位数 3 (IQR 3.25) vs. 2 (IQR 3.50);p = 0.04)和 48 小时阿片类药物用量(中位数 37.50 吗啡毫克当量 (MME) (IQR 45.50) vs. 22.50 吗啡毫克当量 (MME) (IQR 37.50);p = 0.01)更高。结论即使在成熟的 VATS 实践中,机器人方法也能更好地进行淋巴结取样。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
66 days
期刊最新文献
Analysis of neoadjuvant therapy effect on 30-day postoperative outcomes in gallbladder cancer The application of ERAS in the perioperative period management of patients for lung transplantation Could virtual reality be a solution in surgical trainings in resource-restricted settings? A perspective Appendectomy: Cross-sectional study of the effects of COVID-19 in a hospital in South Brazil Surgical skill analysis focused on tissue traction in laparoscopic wet lab training
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1