Philippe Rinieri1, Christophe Peillon2, Mathieu Salaün3, Julien Mahieu2, Michael Bubenheim4, Jean-Marc Baste2. 1. Department of General and Thoracic Surgery, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France philippe.rinieri@chu-rouen.fr. 2. Department of General and Thoracic Surgery, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France. 3. Department of Pneumology, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Unit of Biostatistics, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Video-assisted thoracic surgery appears to be technically difficult for segmentectomy. Conversely, robotic surgery could facilitate the performance of segmentectomy. The aim of this study was to compare the early results of video- and robot-assisted segmentectomies. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively on videothoracoscopy from 2010 and on robotic procedures from 2013. Fifty-one patients who were candidates for minimally invasive segmentectomy were included in the study. Perioperative outcomes of video-assisted and robotic segmentectomies were compared. RESULTS: The minimally invasive segmentectomies included 32 video- and 16 robot-assisted procedures; 3 segmentectomies (2 video-assisted and 1 robot-assisted) were converted to lobectomies. Four conversions to thoracotomy were necessary for anatomical reason or arterial injury, with no uncontrolled bleeding in the robotic arm. There were 7 benign or infectious lesions, 9 pre-invasive lesions, 25 lung cancers, and 10 metastatic diseases. Patient characteristics, type of segment, conversion to thoracotomy, conversion to lobectomy, operative time, postoperative complications, chest tube duration, postoperative stay, and histology were similar in the video and robot groups. Estimated blood loss was significantly higher in the video group (100 vs. 50 mL, p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: The morbidity rate of minimally invasive segmentectomy was low. The short-term results of video-assisted and robot-assisted segmentectomies were similar, and more data are required to show any advantages between the two techniques. Long-term oncologic outcomes are necessary to evaluate these new surgical practices.
OBJECTIVE: Video-assisted thoracic surgery appears to be technically difficult for segmentectomy. Conversely, robotic surgery could facilitate the performance of segmentectomy. The aim of this study was to compare the early results of video- and robot-assisted segmentectomies. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively on videothoracoscopy from 2010 and on robotic procedures from 2013. Fifty-one patients who were candidates for minimally invasive segmentectomy were included in the study. Perioperative outcomes of video-assisted and robotic segmentectomies were compared. RESULTS: The minimally invasive segmentectomies included 32 video- and 16 robot-assisted procedures; 3 segmentectomies (2 video-assisted and 1 robot-assisted) were converted to lobectomies. Four conversions to thoracotomy were necessary for anatomical reason or arterial injury, with no uncontrolled bleeding in the robotic arm. There were 7 benign or infectious lesions, 9 pre-invasive lesions, 25 lung cancers, and 10 metastatic diseases. Patient characteristics, type of segment, conversion to thoracotomy, conversion to lobectomy, operative time, postoperative complications, chest tube duration, postoperative stay, and histology were similar in the video and robot groups. Estimated blood loss was significantly higher in the video group (100 vs. 50 mL, p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: The morbidity rate of minimally invasive segmentectomy was low. The short-term results of video-assisted and robot-assisted segmentectomies were similar, and more data are required to show any advantages between the two techniques. Long-term oncologic outcomes are necessary to evaluate these new surgical practices.