Background
Data from selected centers show that robotic lobectomy (RL) is safe, effective and has comparable 30-day mortality to video assisted lobectomy (VATS). However, widespread adoption of RL is controversial. We used the STS-GTS-Database to evaluate quality metrics for these two minimally invasive lobectomy techniques.
Methods
A database query for primary clinical stage I or II NSCLC at high volume centers from 2009 to 2013 identified 1,220 RLs and 12,378 VATS. Quality metrics evaluated included operative morbidity, 30-day mortality and nodal upstaging (NU), defined as cN0 to pN1. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate NU.
Results
RL patients were older, less active, less likely to be an ever smoker, and had higher BMI (all p<0.05). They were also more likely to have coronary heart disease or hypertension (all p<0.001) and to have had preoperative mediastinal staging (p<0.0001).
RL operative times were longer (median 186 vs 173 min, p<0.001); all other operative parameters were similar. All postoperative outcomes were similar including complications and 30-day mortality (RL 0.6% vs VATS 0.8%, p=0.4). Median length of stay was 4 days for both, but a higher proportion of RLs stayed < 4 days: 48% vs 39%, p<0.001. NU overall was similar (p=0.6), but with trends favoring VATS in the cT1b group, and RL in the cT2a group.
Conclusions
RL patients had more co-morbidities and RL operative times were longer, but quality outcome measures including complications, hospital stay, 30-day mortality, and NU suggest RL and VATS are equivalent.
For this population, we were unable to detect a significant effect of delay on prognosis. Although these results suggest that the risk of judicious observation of indeterminate pulmonary nodules might be low, the 95% confidence interval is broad. Larger sample sizes are needed to reach definitive conclusions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.