Abstract:The authors reported no conflicts of interest.The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest. The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest. We thank Kim and Bharat for their informative commentary1Kim S.S. Bharat A. Commentary: video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus robotic assisted surgery: are we asking the right question?.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. February 7, 2020; ([Epub ahead of print])Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (3) Google Scholar on our article.2Zhang Y. Chen C. Hu J. Han Y. Huang M. Xiang J. et al.Early outcomes of robotic versus thoracoscopic segmentectomy for early-stage lung cancer: a multi-institutional propensity score-matched analysis.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. January 25, 2020; ([Epub ahead of print])Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (30) Google Scholar First, results from a single doctor may be influenced by his surgical technique and learning curve, and to minimize the bias, we included data from 3 leading surgeons from 3 large academic institutions, including Hecheng Li from Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Jian Hu from the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, and Chun Chen from Fujian Medical University Union Hospital. These institutions are 3 of the few institutions that can perform both robotic and thoracoscopic segmentectomy in China. This study finally included 476 thoracoscopic and 298 robotic segmentectomies with the aim to compare the perioperative outcomes of the 2 surgical approaches using propensity score-matched analysis. It takes time and experience to master video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery or robotic surgery technology. It is reasonable that the generalization of these techniques to those thoracic surgeons who may lack similar clinical volume is limited. However, with high incidence rate of pulmonary nodules over the years, the number of patients undergoing minimally invasive segmentectomy has increased significantly in some high-volume centers. This study added guidance to the implementation of the technology. The commentary also pointed out that the variability of pathologists may cause differences and bias in nodal station and number.1Kim S.S. Bharat A. Commentary: video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus robotic assisted surgery: are we asking the right question?.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. February 7, 2020; ([Epub ahead of print])Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (3) Google Scholar However, all 3 surgeons dissected lymph nodes and marked out as many as possible during the surgery, so pathologist variability did not influence the results to a great extent. We did not take the learning curve into account for a number of specific reasons. First, because we included data from 3 different academic institutions, and considering the different number of surgeries performed in these 3 institutions each month and the differences in the learning curve, we included all consecutive data during the study period. Second, at present, the learning curve of robotic and thoracoscopic segmentectomy seems to be similar. In our previous study,3Zhang Y. Liu S. Han Y. Xiang J. Cerfolio R.J. Li H. Robotic anatomical segmentectomy: an analysis of the learning curve.Ann Thorac Surg. 2019; 107: 1515-1522Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (37) Google Scholar we focused on the learning curve of robotic segmentectomy, and found 40 cases were required to gain technical proficiency and feasible perioperative outcomes. For thoracoscopic segmentectomy, initial reports showed the learning curve to be in the range of 32 to 38 cases.4Hamada A. Oizumi H. Kato H. Suzuki J. Nakahashi K. Sho R. et al.Learning curve for port-access thoracoscopic anatomic lung segmentectomy.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018; 156: 1995-2003Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar Current evidence5Rinieri P. Peillon C. Salaun M. Mahieu J. Bubenheim M. Baste J.M. Perioperative outcomes of video- and robot-assisted segmentectomies.Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 2016; 24: 145-151Crossref PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar demonstrates that both robotic and thoracoscopic segmentectomy are safe and feasible for early-stage non–small cell lung cancer treatment, either being the complement of the other. As Kim and Bharat1Kim S.S. Bharat A. Commentary: video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus robotic assisted surgery: are we asking the right question?.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. February 7, 2020; ([Epub ahead of print])Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (3) Google Scholar mentioned, minimally invasive segmentectomy remains a relatively uncommon and technically demanding procedure at several training programs. Moreover, the graduating cardiothoracic surgery residents may not be proficient in the conduct of these procedures. Thus, we should focus on studying the learning curves of these 2 techniques in both experienced and nonleading surgeons as well as studying their safety outcomes. Although our study demonstrated that the robotic approach may lead to a better N1 lymph node dissection, nodal upstaging and long-term results are yet to be confirmed as a potential benefit of robotic surgery in further studies. Thoracic surgeons should choose the appropriate surgical approach after considering the actual situation to provide the better approach for patients receiving minimally invasive segmentectomy. Drs Zhang and Chen contributed equally to this letter. Commentary: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus robotic assisted surgery: Are we asking the right question?The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeryVol. 160Issue 5PreviewMinimally invasive surgical approaches are steadily replacing thoracotomy in early lung cancer. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is safe and oncologically equivalent to open surgery,1-3 demonstrating less postoperative pain, shorter hospital stay, and decreased blood loss.4-6 However, technical challenges, such as dissection of small yet variable segmental bronchovascular structures and the intersegmental plane, result in a steep learning curve that may hinder the adoption of VATS for segmentectomy. Full-Text PDF Open ArchiveREPLY: ROBOTIC-ASSISTED SEGMENTECTOMY: DOING IT SIMPLY BECAUSE WE CAN?The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeryVol. 160Issue 3PreviewIn their response1 to the recent commentary by Kim and Bharat,2 Zhang and Li address some limitations of their recent retrospective study3 comparing outcomes of video-assisted (VATS) and robotic-assisted (RATS) thoracoscopic segmentectomy. Full-Text PDF Open Archive

Early outcomes of robotic versus video-thoracoscopic anatomical segmentectomy: a propensity score-matched real-world study

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

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

Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes Between Robot-Assisted and Video-Assisted Segmentectomy for Small Pulmonary Nodules: A Propensity Score-Matching Study

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

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

Short‐term Outcomes of Typical Versus Atypical Lung Segmentectomy by Minimally Invasive Surgeries

Perioperative outcomes of radical lobectomies using robotic-assisted thoracoscopic technique vs . video-assisted thoracoscopic technique: retrospective study of 1,075 consecutive p-stage I non-small cell lung cancer cases.

Robotic or Thoracoscopic Segmentectomy: Each Complements the Other

Safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted thoracoscopic day surgery for pulmonary nodules: a retrospective analysis based on propensity score matching

Short-term and Mid-Term Survival in Bronchial Sleeve Resection by Robotic System Versus Thoracotomy for Centrally Located Lung Cancer

Robotic thoracic surgery: lessons learned from the first 1,000 procedures

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

Operative Outcomes and Long-Term Survival of Robotic-Assisted Segmentectomy for Stage IA Lung Cancer Compared with Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Segmentectomy

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

The Use Of Diagnostic Complex Robotic Assisted Segmentectomy In The Management Of Incidental and Screen Detected Pulmonary Nodules

AB002. Perioperative Outcomes of Radical Lobectomies Using Robotic-assisted Thoracoscopic Techniques Vs. Traditional Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Techniques: Retrospective Study of 1,075 Consecutive P-Stage I NSCLC Cases

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

Robotic Sleeve Resection of the Airway: Outcomes and Technical Conduct Using Video Vignettes

Propensity Score-matched Analysis Comparing Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Minor Liver Resections of the Anterolateral Segments: an International Multi-center Study of 10,517 Cases