COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Open, video-assisted thoracic surgery, and robotic lobectomy: review of a national database.

BACKGROUND: To date, reports on outcomes after robotic-assisted pulmonary resection have been confined to small, single-institution case series. Furthermore, no comparison has been made between robotic, open, and video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) procedures. We sought to compare the outcomes between these approaches using the State Inpatient Databases (SID).

METHODS: Using the 2008 to 2010 SID, we identified patients who underwent an open, VATS, or robotic lobectomy from 8 states. Patients who underwent segmentectomy were also included. A comparison of outcomes was performed using a propensity-matched analysis.

RESULTS: We identified a total of 33,095 patients (open: 20,238; VATS: 12,427; robotic: 430). Case volumes for robotic resections increased over the study period from 0.2% in 2008 to 3.4% in 2010. Robotic resections were performed in all 8 states, and 38% were conducted in a community hospital. In propensity-matched analysis, robotic resections were associated with significant reductions in mortality (0.2% vs 2.0%, p = 0.016), length of stay (5.9 vs 8.2 days, p < 0.0001), and overall complication rates (43.8% vs 54.1%, p = 0.003) when compared with open thoracotomy. Robotic resection was also associated with reductions in mortality (0.2% vs 1.1%, p = 0.12), length of stay (5.9 days vs 6.3 days, p = 0.45), and overall complication rates (43.8% vs 45.3%, p = 0.68) when compared with VATS; however, none of these differences were statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS: Case volume for robotic pulmonary resections has increased significantly during the study period, and thoracic surgeons have been able to adopt the robotic approach safely. Robotic resection appears to be an appropriate alternative to VATS and is associated with improved outcomes compared with open thoracotomy.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app