IntroductionRobot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) is an alternative to video-assessed thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for the treatment of lung cancer but concern exists regarding the high associated costs. The COVID-19 pandemic added further financial pressure to healthcare systems. This study investigated the impact of the learning curve on the cost-effectiveness of RATS lung resection and the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on a RATS program.MethodsPatients undergoing RATS lung resection between January 2017 and December 2020 were prospectively followed. A matched cohort of VATS cases were analyzed in parallel. The first 100 and most recent 100 RATS cases performed at our institution were compared to assess the learning curve. Cases performed before and after March 2020 were compared to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. A comprehensive cost analysis of multiple theatre and postoperative data points was performed using Stata statistics package (v14.2).Results365 RATS cases were included. Median cost per procedure was £7,167 and theatre cost accounted for 70%. Major contributing factors to overall cost were operative time and postoperative length of stay. Cost per case was £640 less after passing the learning curve (p < 0.001) largely due to reduced operative time. Comparison of a post-learning curve RATS subgroup matched to 101 VATS cases revealed no significant difference in theatre costs between the two techniques. Overall cost of RATS lung resections performed before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were not significantly different. However, theatre costs were significantly cheaper (£620/case; p < 0.001) and postoperative costs were significantly more expensive (£1,221/case; p = 0.018) during the pandemic.DiscussionPassing the learning curve is associated with a significant reduction in the theatre costs associated with RATS lung resection and is comparable with the cost of VATS. This study may underestimate the true cost benefit of passing the learning curve due to the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on theatre costs. The COVID-19 pandemic made RATS lung resection more expensive due to prolonged hospital stay and increased readmission rate. The present study offers some evidence that the initial increased costs associated with RATS lung resection may be gradually offset as a program progresses.

Robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) has gained popularity for the treatment of lung cancer, but its quality outcome measures are still being evaluated. The purpose of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of lung cancer resection using RATS versus video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS). To achieve this aim, we conducted a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent lung cancer surgery between July 2015 and December 2020. A propensity-matched analysis was performed based on patients’ performance status, forced expiratory volume in 1 s% of predicted, diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide% of predicted, and surgical procedure (lobectomy or segmentectomy). Following propensity matching, a total of 613 patients were included in the analysis, of which 328 underwent RATS, and 285 underwent VATS, with satisfactory performance indicators. The results of the analysis indicated that RATS had a significantly longer operating time than VATS (132.4 ± 37.3 versus 122.4 ± 27.7 min; mean difference of 10 min 95% CI [confidence interval], 4.2 to 15.9 min; p = 0.001). On the other hand, VATS had a significantly higher estimated blood loss compared to RATS (169.7 ± 237.2 versus 82.2 ± 195.4 mL; mean difference of 87.5 mL; 95% CI, 48.1 to 126.8 mL; p < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the duration of chest tubes, length of hospital stay, low- and high-grade complications, as well as readmissions and mortality within 30 days after surgery. Moreover, the number of dissected lymph-node stations was significantly higher with VATS than RATS (5.9 ± 1.5 versus 4.8 ± 2.2; mean difference of 1.2; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.5; p = 0.001). Nonetheless, the percentage of patients who were upstaged after histopathological analysis of the resected lymph nodes was similar between the two groups. In conclusion, RATS and VATS yielded comparable results for most of the short-term outcomes assessed. Further research is needed to validate the implementation of RATS and identify its potential benefits over VATS.