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

Abstract

OBJECTIVES Minimally invasive anatomic segmentectomy for the resection of pulmonary nodules has significantly increased in the last years. Nevertheless, there is limited evidence on the safety and feasibility of robotic segmentectomy compared to video-assisted thoracic surgery. This study aimed to compare the real-world early outcomes of robotic and video-thoracoscopic in anatomic segmentectomy. METHODS Single centre cohort study including all consecutive patients undergoing segmentectomy by either robotic or video-thoracoscopic from June 2018 to November 2023. Propensity score case matching analysis generated two matched groups undergoing robotic or video-thoracoscopic segmentectomy. Short-term outcomes were analysed and compared between groups. RESULTS 204 patients (75 robotic and 129 video-thoracoscopic patients) were included. After matching, 146 patients (73 cases in each group) were compared. One 30-day death was observed in the robotic group (P = 1). Two conversions to thoracotomy occurred in the robotic, and none in the video-thoracoscopic group (P = 0.5). Surgical time was longer in the robotic group (P = 0.091). There were no significant differences between robotic and video-thoracoscopic groups in postoperative complications (13.7% vs 15.1%, P = 1), cardiopulmonary complications (6.8% vs 6.8%, P = 1), major complications (4.1% vs 4.1%, P = 1), prolonged air leak (4.1% vs 5.5%, P = 1), arrythmia (1.4% vs 0%, P = 1) and reoperation (2.7% vs 2.7%, P = 1). Median length of stay was 3 days (IQR, 2–3 days) in the robotic group vs 3 days (IQR, 2.5–4 days) in the video-thoracoscopic group (P = 0.212). CONCLUSIONS Robotic segmentectomy is a safe and feasible alternative to video-thoracoscopy, as no significant differences in early postoperative outcomes were found between the two techniques.