Literature DB >> 28740675

Feasibility of four-arm robotic lobectomy as solo surgery in patients with clinical stage I lung cancer.

Seong Yong Park1, Jee Won Suh1, Kyoung Sik Narm1, Chang Young Lee1, Jin Gu Lee1, Hyo Chae Paik1, Kyoung Young Chung1, Dae Joon Kim1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study was performed to investigate the feasibility of four-arm robotic lobectomy (FARL) as a solo surgical technique in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Early outcome and long-term survival of FARL were compared with those of video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy (VATL).
METHODS: Prospective enrollment of patients with clinical stage I NSCLC undergoing FARL or VATL (20 patients in each group) was planned. Interim analysis for early postoperative outcome was performed after the initial 10 cases in each group.
RESULTS: The study was terminated early because of safety issues in the FARL group after enrollment of 12 FARL and 17 VATL patients from 2011 to 2012. There were no differences in clinical characteristics between groups. Lobectomy time and total operation time were significantly longer in the FARL group (P=0.003). There were three life-threatening events in the FARL group (2 bleedings, 1 bronchus tear) that necessitated thoracotomy conversion in 1 patient. There were no differences in other operative outcomes including pain score, complications, or length of hospital stay. Pathologic stage and number of dissected lymph nodes (LNs) were also comparable. During a follow-up of 48.9±9.5 months, recurrence was identified in 2 (16.7%) patients in FARL group and 3 (23.5%) in VATL group. Five-year overall survival (100% vs. 87.5%, P=0.386) and disease-free survival (82.5% vs. 75.6%, P=0.589) were comparable.
CONCLUSIONS: FARL as solo surgery could not be recommended because of safety issues. It required a longer operation time and had no benefits over VATL in terms of early postoperative outcome or long-term survival.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Lung cancer; outcome; robot

Year:  2017        PMID: 28740675      PMCID: PMC5506130          DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2017.05.08

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Dis        ISSN: 2072-1439            Impact factor:   2.895


  16 in total

1.  Early experience with robotic lung resection results in similar operative outcomes and morbidity when compared with matched video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery cases.

Authors:  Brian E Louie; Alexander S Farivar; Ralph W Aye; Eric Vallières
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2012-03-20       Impact factor: 4.330

2.  The learning curve of robotic lobectomy.

Authors:  Mark Meyer; Farid Gharagozloo; Barbara Tempesta; Marc Margolis; Eric Strother; Douglas Christenson
Journal:  Int J Med Robot       Date:  2012-09-18       Impact factor: 2.547

3.  Executive Summary: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  Frank C Detterbeck; Sandra Zelman Lewis; Rebecca Diekemper; Doreen Addrizzo-Harris; W Michael Alberts
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 9.410

4.  Comparison of the early robot-assisted lobectomy experience to video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy for lung cancer: a single-institution case series matching study.

Authors:  Hee-Jin Jang; Hyun-Sung Lee; Seong Yong Park; Jae Ill Zo
Journal:  Innovations (Phila)       Date:  2011-09

5.  Pulmonary function, postoperative pain, and serum cytokine level after lobectomy: a comparison of VATS and conventional procedure.

Authors:  I Nagahiro; A Andou; M Aoe; Y Sano; H Date; N Shimizu
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 4.330

Review 6.  Robotic-Assisted Thoracic Surgery for Early-Stage Lung Cancer: A Review.

Authors:  Paula Brooks
Journal:  AORN J       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 0.676

7.  Predictors and treatment of persistent air leaks.

Authors:  Robert J Cerfolio; Cynthia Sale Bass; Amanda Harrison Pask; Charles R Katholi
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.330

8.  Early experience with robot-assisted surgery for mediastinal masses.

Authors:  Johannes Bodner; Heinz Wykypiel; Andreas Greiner; Werner Kirchmayr; Martin C Freund; Raimund Margreiter; Thomas Schmid
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 4.330

9.  Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography: a non-invasive diagnostic protocol for baseline lung nodules.

Authors:  Giulia Veronesi; Massimo Bellomi; James L Mulshine; Giuseppe Pelosi; Paolo Scanagatta; Giovanni Paganelli; Patrick Maisonneuve; Lorenzo Preda; Francesco Leo; Raffaella Bertolotti; Piergiorgio Solli; Lorenzo Spaggiari
Journal:  Lung Cancer       Date:  2008-03-04       Impact factor: 5.705

Review 10.  Robotic surgery for lung cancer.

Authors:  Marcello C Ambrogi; Olivia Fanucchi; Franco Melfi; Alfredo Mussi
Journal:  Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2014-06-05
View more
  2 in total

1.  Is robotic surgery for NSCLC innovative enough?

Authors:  Marcello Migliore
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Uniportal video-assisted thoracic surgery, and the uni-surgeon: new words for the contemporary world.

Authors:  Marcello Migliore
Journal:  J Vis Surg       Date:  2018-03-07
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.