INTRODUCTION: Recently, robotic-assisted thymectomy (RAT) has emerged as an alternative to either, an open transsternal approach or to a video-assisted thoracoscopic approach, for both thymic tumors and benign lesions. We have reviewed our early experience with RAT to assess the associated learning curve as well as the short-term perioperative outcomes. METHODS: A prospectively collected database was reviewed for patients who underwent RAT for all causes in the period 2012-2016. Robotic thymectomy cases were stratified and compared according to the number of cases performed by each surgeon (≤15 versus >15 cases). A propensity score matching was done to compare perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic and transsternal resection of thymomas. RESULTS: Seventy patients (47 females) with a median age of 52, underwent RAT. The median operative time was 102 min with 5 conversions to an open approach for local invasion (n = 3) or for complete pleural symphysis (n = 2). There were 2 rib fractures and 1 recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. Median length of chest tube drainage and length of stay were 1 and 3 days, respectively. Operative time and estimated blood loss plateaued after surgeon's initial 15-20 cases, which may reflect the initial learning curve. A comparison between early and late robotic cases showed that with the growing experience, the operative time becomes shorter (94 versus 107 min, P = .018). Propensity score analysis between robotic and transsternal resection of thymoma (n = 22 in each group) showed no significant differences in operative time (P = .79), intraoperative complications (P = .99), or postoperative complications (P = .99). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic thymectomy is feasible and safe, and is associated with comparable perioperative outcomes to the traditional transsternal approach in patients undergoing thymomectomy. An initial learning curve of 15-20 robotic thymectomy cases may be required by the surgeons to adequately perform this relatively novel technique.
INTRODUCTION: Recently, robotic-assisted thymectomy (RAT) has emerged as an alternative to either, an open transsternal approach or to a video-assisted thoracoscopic approach, for both thymic tumors and benign lesions. We have reviewed our early experience with RAT to assess the associated learning curve as well as the short-term perioperative outcomes. METHODS: A prospectively collected database was reviewed for patients who underwent RAT for all causes in the period 2012-2016. Robotic thymectomy cases were stratified and compared according to the number of cases performed by each surgeon (≤15 versus >15 cases). A propensity score matching was done to compare perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic and transsternal resection of thymomas. RESULTS: Seventy patients (47 females) with a median age of 52, underwent RAT. The median operative time was 102 min with 5 conversions to an open approach for local invasion (n = 3) or for complete pleural symphysis (n = 2). There were 2 rib fractures and 1 recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. Median length of chest tube drainage and length of stay were 1 and 3 days, respectively. Operative time and estimated blood loss plateaued after surgeon's initial 15-20 cases, which may reflect the initial learning curve. A comparison between early and late robotic cases showed that with the growing experience, the operative time becomes shorter (94 versus 107 min, P = .018). Propensity score analysis between robotic and transsternal resection of thymoma (n = 22 in each group) showed no significant differences in operative time (P = .79), intraoperative complications (P = .99), or postoperative complications (P = .99). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic thymectomy is feasible and safe, and is associated with comparable perioperative outcomes to the traditional transsternal approach in patients undergoing thymomectomy. An initial learning curve of 15-20 robotic thymectomy cases may be required by the surgeons to adequately perform this relatively novel technique.
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: Jia-Xin Xu; Kai Qian; Yi Deng; Yan-Yan Zheng; Chun-Mei Ou; Jie Liu; Li-Hong Jiang Journal: Int J Med Robot Date: 2021-09-24 Impact factor: 2.483
Authors: Judith Buentzel; Carmen Straube; Judith Heinz; Christian Roever; Alexander Beham; Andreas Emmert; Marc Hinterthaner; Bernhard C Danner; Alexander Emmert Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 1.817