Ravi Rajaram1, Sanjay Mohanty2, David J Bentrem3, Emily S Pavey4, David D Odell5, Ankit Bharat6, Karl Y Bilimoria7, Malcolm M DeCamp6. 1. Division of Research and Optimal Patient Care, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, Illinois; Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: rrajaram@facs.org. 2. Division of Research and Optimal Patient Care, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 6. Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 7. Division of Research and Optimal Patient Care, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, Illinois; Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robotic lobectomy has been described for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Our objectives were to (1) evaluate the use of robotic lobectomy over time, (2) identify factors associated with its use, and (3) assess outcomes after robotic lobectomy compared with other surgical approaches. METHODS: Stage I to IIIA NSCLC patients were identified from the National Cancer Data Base (2010 to 2012). Trends in robotic lobectomy were assessed over time, and multivariable logistic regression models were developed to identify factors associated with its use. Propensity-matched cohorts were constructed to compare postoperative outcomes after robotic lobectomy with thoracoscopic and open lobectomy. RESULTS: Lobectomy was performed in 62,206 patients by open (n = 45,527), thoracoscopic (n = 12,990), or robotic (n = 3,689) procedures at 1,215 hospitals. Between 2010 and 2012, robotic lobectomy significantly increased, from 3.0% to 9.1% (p < 0.001). Academic (odds ratio, 1.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 2.33) and high-volume hospitals (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 2.14) were associated with increased use of robotic lobectomy. Length of stay was shorter in robotic lobectomy compared with open lobectomy (6.1 vs 6.9 days; p < 0.001). Fewer lymph nodes (9.9 vs 10.9; p < 0.001) and 12 or more nodes were examined less frequently (32.0% vs 35.6%; p = 0.005) in robotic resections than in thoracoscopic resections. There was no difference between robotic and open or robotic and thoracoscopic lobectomy patients in margin positivity, 30-day readmission, and deaths at 30 and 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic lobectomies have significantly increased in stage I to IIIA NSCLC patients, with outcomes similar to other approaches. Additional studies are needed to determine if this technology offers potential advantages compared with video-assisted thoracoscopic operations.
BACKGROUND: Robotic lobectomy has been described for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Our objectives were to (1) evaluate the use of robotic lobectomy over time, (2) identify factors associated with its use, and (3) assess outcomes after robotic lobectomy compared with other surgical approaches. METHODS: Stage I to IIIA NSCLCpatients were identified from the National Cancer Data Base (2010 to 2012). Trends in robotic lobectomy were assessed over time, and multivariable logistic regression models were developed to identify factors associated with its use. Propensity-matched cohorts were constructed to compare postoperative outcomes after robotic lobectomy with thoracoscopic and open lobectomy. RESULTS: Lobectomy was performed in 62,206 patients by open (n = 45,527), thoracoscopic (n = 12,990), or robotic (n = 3,689) procedures at 1,215 hospitals. Between 2010 and 2012, robotic lobectomy significantly increased, from 3.0% to 9.1% (p < 0.001). Academic (odds ratio, 1.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 2.33) and high-volume hospitals (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 2.14) were associated with increased use of robotic lobectomy. Length of stay was shorter in robotic lobectomy compared with open lobectomy (6.1 vs 6.9 days; p < 0.001). Fewer lymph nodes (9.9 vs 10.9; p < 0.001) and 12 or more nodes were examined less frequently (32.0% vs 35.6%; p = 0.005) in robotic resections than in thoracoscopic resections. There was no difference between robotic and open or robotic and thoracoscopic lobectomy patients in margin positivity, 30-day readmission, and deaths at 30 and 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic lobectomies have significantly increased in stage I to IIIA NSCLCpatients, with outcomes similar to other approaches. Additional studies are needed to determine if this technology offers potential advantages compared with video-assisted thoracoscopic operations.
Authors: Giulia Veronesi; Bernardo G Agoglia; Franca Melfi; Patrick Maisonneuve; Raffaella Bertolotti; Paolo P Bianchi; Bernardo Rocco; Alessandro Borri; Roberto Gasparri; Lorenzo Spaggiari Journal: Innovations (Phila) Date: 2011-11
Authors: Subroto Paul; Nasser K Altorki; Shubin Sheng; Paul C Lee; David H Harpole; Mark W Onaitis; Brendon M Stiles; Jeffrey L Port; Thomas A D'Amico Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Joseph D Phillips; Ryan P Merkow; Karen L Sherman; Malcolm M DeCamp; David J Bentrem; Karl Y Bilimoria Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-06-06 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Cameron D Wright; Henning A Gaissert; Joshua D Grab; Sean M O'Brien; Eric D Peterson; Mark S Allen Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Alexandra D Power; Desmond M D'Souza; Susan D Moffatt-Bruce; Robert E Merritt; Peter J Kneuertz Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-08-02 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Norma E Farrow; Selena J An; Paul J Speicher; David H Harpole; Thomas A D'Amico; Jacob A Klapper; Matthew G Hartwig; Betty C Tong Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 5.209