Abstract:Objective: To compare the safety and short-term efficacy of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery(RATS) and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery(VATS) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: A retrospective analysis of the clinical data of 2 058 NSCLC patients who underwent RATS and VATS from January 2021 to December 2022 in Xiangya Hospital of Central South University was conducted, including 1 006 males and 1 052 females, with the age of (57.3±9.9) years. According to the surgical approach, the patients were divided into RATS group (n=1 190) and VATS group (n=868). The nearest neighbor matching method was used to perform 1∶1 propensity score matching (PSM). A comparison was made about the intraoperative conditions and postoperative complication rates between the RATS and VATS groups before and after PSM. Furthermore, after PSM, a stratified analysis was conducted based on surgical approach, separately comparing the intraoperative conditions and postoperative complication rates between the VATS and RATS groups among patients who underwent lobectomy and segmentectomy, respectively. Results: After PSM, a total of 1 692 patients were included, with 846 patients in both the VATS and RATS groups. After stratification based on surgical approach, there were 503 patients in the RATS group and 548 patients in the VATS group for lobectomy, and 338 patients in the RATS group and 298 patients in the VATS group for segmentectomy. Before PSM, statistically significant differences were observed between the RATS and VATS groups in terms of intraoperative conversion to open thoracotomy, number of lymph node dissection/sampling stations, extubation time, total length of hospital stay, and total hospitalization costs (all P<0.001). After PSM, compared with the VATS group, the RATS group had a lower intraoperative conversion rate to open surgery [1.2% (10/846) vs 5.1% (43/846)], less intraoperative blood loss [(73.6±77.4) ml vs (112.6±239.3) ml], a greater number of sampled/dissected lymph node stations [(4.8±2.0) vs (3.7±1.8)], a shorter duration of drainage tube placement [(3.6±2.7) d vs (4.1±2.5) d], and a higher postoperative drainage volume [(273.9±183.0) ml vs (256.5±168.7) ml] (all P<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups (P=0.108). The results of the surgical stratification analysis showed statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph node dissection/sampling stations, extubation time, and total hospitalization costs for both lobectomy and segmentectomy surgeries (all P<0.001). In lobectomy surgeries, the RATS group had a lower rate of intraoperative conversion to open thoracotomy than that of VATS group [1.6% (8/503) vs 7.7% (42/548), P<0.001]. In segmentectomy surgeries, the RATS group had more postoperative drainage volume than that of VATS group [(249.8±151.5) ml vs (218.7±132.9) ml, P=0.023]. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of surgical complications between the two groups for both lobectomy and segmentectomy surgeries (both P>0.05). Conclusion: In the surgical management of NSCLC, RATS offers more advantages over VATS in reducing conversion rates to open surgery, minimizing perioperative adverse events, and facilitating faster patient recovery postoperatively.

[Observational studies to evaluate robotic-assisted lung cancer surgery?]

Comparison of Robotic and Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery for Lung Cancer: a Propensity-Matched Analysis.

Early Outcomes of Robotic Versus Thoracoscopic Segmentectomy for Early-Stage Lung Cancer: A Multi-Institutional Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Long-Term And Short-Term Outcomes Of Robot- Versus Video-Assisted Anatomic Lung Resection In Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis

Long-term and Short-Term Outcomes of Robot- Versus Video-Assisted Anatomic Lung Resection in Lung Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic Surgery for the Treatment of Lung Cancer Compared to a Conventional Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) Technique.

Comparing Robotic, Thoracoscopic, and Open Segmentectomy: A National Cancer Database Analysis

Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Surgery Compared to Conventional Surgical Approaches (Laparoscopic or Open)

Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Versus Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Lobectomy: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

Robot-assisted thoracic surgery versus video-assisted thoracic surgery for lung lobectomy or segmentectomy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis

Robotic lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer

Robotic sleeve lobectomy for centrally located non-small cell lung cancer: A propensity score-weighted comparison with thoracoscopic and open surgery

Robotic Versus Thoracoscopic Combined Anatomic Subsegmentectomy for Early-Stage Lung Cancer: Early Results of a Cohort Study

Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery reduces perioperative complications and achieves a similar long-term survival profile as posterolateral thoracotomy in clinical N2 stage non-small cell lung cancer patients: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial

[Comparison of the efficacy of robot assisted and thoracoscopic assisted thoracic surgery in non-small cell lung cancer]

Robotic Lung Cancer Surgery: from Simple to Complex, from Surgery to Clinical Study.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic liver resections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Robotic‐assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery Improves Perioperative Outcomes in Overweight and Obese Patients with Non–small‐cell Lung Cancer Undergoing Lobectomy: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Comparison of the Perioperative Outcomes Between Robotic-Assisted Thoracic Surgery and Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients with Different Body Mass Index Ranges.

The COMPARE Study: Comparing Perioperative Outcomes of Oncologic Minimally Invasive Laparoscopic, Da Vinci Robotic, and Open Procedures: A Systematic Review and meta-analysis of The Evidence