No abstract

Background Early studies have illustrated the robotic lobectomy to be safe, oncologically effective, and economically feasible as a therapeutic modality in the treatment of thoracic malignancies. The ‘challenging’ learning curve seemingly associated with the robotic approach, however, continues to be an often-cited factor to its ongoing uptake, with the overwhelming volume of these surgeries being performed in centers of excellence where extensive experience with minimal access surgery is the norm. An exact quantification of this learning curve challenge, however, has not been made, begging the question of whether this is an outdated assumption, versus fact. This systematic review and meta-analysis sort to clarify the learning curve for robotic-assisted lobectomy based on the existing literature. Methods An electronic search of four databases was performed to identify relevant studies outlining the learning curve of robotic lobectomy. The primary endpoint was a clear definition of operator learning (e.g., cumulative sum chart, linear regression, outcome-specific analysis, etc.) which could be subsequently aggregated or reported. Secondary endpoints of interest included post-operative outcomes and complication rates. A meta-analysis using a random effects model of proportions or means was applied, as appropriate. Results The search strategy identified twenty-two studies relevant for inclusion. A total of 3,246 patients (30% male) receiving robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) were identified. The mean age of the cohort was 65.3±5.0 years. Mean operative, console and dock time was 190.5±53.8, 125.8±33.9 and 10.2±4.0 minutes, respectively. Length of hospital stay was 6.1±4.6 days. Technical proficiency with the robotic-assisted lobectomy was achieved at a mean of 25.3±12.6 cases. Conclusions The robotic-assisted lobectomy has been illustrated to have a reasonable learning curve profile based on the existing literature. Current evidence on the oncologic efficacy and purported benefits of the robotic approach will be bolstered by the results of upcoming randomized trials, which will be critical in supporting RATS uptake.

Background: Early results have illustrated the multiportal robotic approach to be safe and oncologically efficacious in the treatment of thoracic malignancies. Industry leaders have improved upon the lessons learned during the early multiportal studies and have now come to establish the feasibility of the biportal, and subsequently the uniportal robotic-assisted approach, all in an effort to offer patients equivalent or better outcomes with less surgical trauma. No current, coherent body of evidence currently exists outlining the early-term outcomes of patients undergoing uniportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to clarify the early-phase outcomes of these patients.Methods: An electronic search of four databases was performed to identify relevant studies outlining the immediate post-operative outcomes of patients undergoing uniportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgeries. The primary endpoint was defined as technical success (i.e., no conversion to secondary robotic, video-assisted thoracoscopic, or open approaches). Secondary endpoints of interest included post-operative outcomes and complication rates. A meta-analysis using a random effects model of proportions or means was applied, as appropriate.Results: The search strategy ultimately yielded 12 relevant studies for inclusion. A total of 240 patients (52% male) split across cohort studies and case reports were identified. The mean age of the two groups was 59.7±3.0 and 58.1±6.8 years, respectively. The mean operative time was 133.8±38.2 and 150.0±52.2 minutes, respectively. Length of hospital stay was 4.4±1.6 and 4.3±1.1 days, respectively. The mean blood loss was 80.0±25.1 mL The majority of identified procedures were lobectomies, segmentectomies, and wedge resections, though complex sleeve resections and anterior mediastinal mass resections were also completed.Cumulative technical success was 99.9%. Conclusions:The uniportal robotic-assisted approach, when completed in expert hands, has been illustrated to have exceedingly low rates of conversion to secondary procedures, along with short length of stay (LOS), minimal blood loss, and short procedural times (variable depending on operation type). Current evidence on the feasibility of this approach will be bolstered by upcoming multi-institutional series.

No abstract