Background
Segmentectomy is increasingly used to resect lung nodules. Robotic‐assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) is considered a safe and practical method for segmentectomy. Few studies have compared robotic surgery and video‐assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) for lung segmentectomy.
Method
We retrospectively examined 215 consecutive patients who underwent typical (88 patients) or atypical (128 patients) segmentectomy by either robotic surgery or VATS. The postoperative characteristics including operation time, blood loss, pneumonia, tumor size, lymph nodes harvested, chest tube duration, prolonged air leak, atrial fibrillation, and postoperative hospital stay were recorded.
Results
A total of 88 patients underwent typical segmentectomy, while 127 patients underwent atypical segmentectomy. A greater number of lymph nodes were resected via RATS than by VATS (13.24 ± 4.84 vs. 11.71 ± 3.89; P = 0.018). The operation time for typical segmentectomy was shorter than that for atypical segmentectomy (115.69 ± 22.32 vs. 131.68 ± 22.52; P = 0). No significant differences were found between RATS and VATS in terms of chest drainage duration and postoperative hospital stay. The incidence of postoperative complications including prolonged air leak and atrial fibrillation was not significantly different between typical segmentectomy and atypical segmentectomy.
Conclusion
Atypical segmentectomy is more complicated than typical segmentectomy, which may lead to increases in complications and operation time. Robotic surgery was safe and practical for segmentectomy compared to VATS and more lymph nodes could be dissected by RATS without increasing the risk of postoperative complications.
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.