OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyse the results of robotic lobectomy for lung cancer. The evolution of technique and technology was evaluated. METHODS: During the period 2004-12, all patients who underwent robotic lobectomy for clinical early-stage lung cancer were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 included 69 patients operated by the first generation of surgical robotic system. Group 2 included 160 patients treated with the latest generation of surgical robotic system. Age, gender, comorbidities, operative time, docking time, conversion rate, morbidity, mortality and length of postoperative stay were compared in both groups. RESULTS: The two groups were homogeneous in terms of age, gender and comorbidities. Histopathological analysis showed 41 and 107 adenocarcinomas, 27 and 37 squamous cell carcinomas, 1 and 7 large cell carcinomas, in Groups 1 and 2, respectively, and 5 sarcomatoid carcinomas and 4 carcinoids in Group 2. The pathological stage for Group 1 was Stage I (48 cases), Stage II (17 cases) and Stage III (4 cases). For Group 2, Stage I was found in 115 cases, Stage II in 30 cases and Stage III in 15 cases. The mean operative time was 237 (standard deviation (SD) + 66.9) and 172 (SD ± 39.6) min for Groups 1 and 2 (P = 0.002), respectively. The conversion rates were, respectively, 10.1 and 5.6% (P = 0.21), mortality rates 1.4 and 0% (P = 0.30) and morbidity rates 22 and 15% (P = 0.12). The mean length of postoperative stay was 4.4 (SD ± 3.1) and 3.8 days (SD ± 2.2) (P = 0.26), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a positive trend in the outcomes for patients who underwent the upgraded robotic system surgery compared with those treated by the standard system.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyse the results of robotic lobectomy for lung cancer. The evolution of technique and technology was evaluated. METHODS: During the period 2004-12, all patients who underwent robotic lobectomy for clinical early-stage lung cancer were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 included 69 patients operated by the first generation of surgical robotic system. Group 2 included 160 patients treated with the latest generation of surgical robotic system. Age, gender, comorbidities, operative time, docking time, conversion rate, morbidity, mortality and length of postoperative stay were compared in both groups. RESULTS: The two groups were homogeneous in terms of age, gender and comorbidities. Histopathological analysis showed 41 and 107 adenocarcinomas, 27 and 37 squamous cell carcinomas, 1 and 7 large cell carcinomas, in Groups 1 and 2, respectively, and 5 sarcomatoid carcinomas and 4 carcinoids in Group 2. The pathological stage for Group 1 was Stage I (48 cases), Stage II (17 cases) and Stage III (4 cases). For Group 2, Stage I was found in 115 cases, Stage II in 30 cases and Stage III in 15 cases. The mean operative time was 237 (standard deviation (SD) + 66.9) and 172 (SD ± 39.6) min for Groups 1 and 2 (P = 0.002), respectively. The conversion rates were, respectively, 10.1 and 5.6% (P = 0.21), mortality rates 1.4 and 0% (P = 0.30) and morbidity rates 22 and 15% (P = 0.12). The mean length of postoperative stay was 4.4 (SD ± 3.1) and 3.8 days (SD ± 2.2) (P = 0.26), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a positive trend in the outcomes for patients who underwent the upgraded robotic system surgery compared with those treated by the standard system.