Perioperative outcomes of robotic‐assisted versus video‐assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy: A propensity score matched analysis

AbstractBackgroundThe existing literature on perioperative outcomes of robotic‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) versus video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for lung lobectomy is inconclusive.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of VATS and RATS lobectomy procedures for patients with non‐small cell lung cancer to compare the short‐term perioperative outcomes by propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.ResultsA total of 418 patients were enrolled in this study. After PSM, 71 patients each received VATS and RATS lobectomy for further analysis. RATS lobectomy was associated with a lower rate of conversion to thoracotomy (0% vs. 5.63%, p = 0.006), a lower rate of postoperative prolonged air leak (1.14% vs. 19.72%, p = 0.001) and a shorter duration of postoperative chest tube drainage (3 days interquartile range [IQR: 3, 4] vs. 4 days IQR [3–5], p = 0.027). Subgroup analysis indicated that after acquiring proficiency in the RATS procedure, its disadvantages diminished while its advantages were enhanced. In terms of rate of conversion to thoracotomy, length of hospital stays, and duration of postoperative chest tube drainage, RATS was comparable to uniportal VATS and superior to triportal VATS.ConclusionRATS has advantages over VATS in terms of early chest tube removal, early discharge, lower thoracotomy rate, less postoperative air leak, and a potential trend of more lymph node dissection numbers. These advantages are more pronounced after acquiring proficiency in RATS.