OBJECTIVES: Robotic surgery, although it shares some technical features with video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), offers some advantages, such as ergonomic design and a 3-dimensional view. Thus, the learning curve for robotic lung resection could be expected to be shorter than that of VATS for surgeons who are proficient in VATS. The goal of this study was to analyse the robotic learning curve of a VATS experienced surgeon and to compare it to his own VATS learning curve for anatomical lung resections. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study based on the prospectively recorded data of the first 150 anatomical lung resections performed with VATS (75 cases) and with the robotic (75 cases) approach by the same surgeon in our centre. Learning curves were analysed using the cumulative sum method to assess the trends for total operating time and surgical failure (intraoperative complications, conversion, technical postoperative complications and reintervention) across case sequences. Subsequently, using adequate statistical tests, we compared the postoperative outcomes in both groups. RESULTS: The median operating time was similar for both approaches (P = 0.401). Surgical failure rate was higher for the robotic cases (21.3% vs 12%; P = 0.125). Based on cumulative sum analyses, operating time decreased starting with case 34 in the VATS group and with case 32 in the robotic cohort. Surgical failure tended to decline starting with case 28 in the VATS group and with case 32 in the robotic group. Perioperative results were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: When we compared robotic and VATS learning curves for anatomical lung resection, we did not find any differences. Postoperative outcomes were also similar with both approaches.
OBJECTIVES: Robotic surgery, although it shares some technical features with video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), offers some advantages, such as ergonomic design and a 3-dimensional view. Thus, the learning curve for robotic lung resection could be expected to be shorter than that of VATS for surgeons who are proficient in VATS. The goal of this study was to analyse the robotic learning curve of a VATS experienced surgeon and to compare it to his own VATS learning curve for anatomical lung resections. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study based on the prospectively recorded data of the first 150 anatomical lung resections performed with VATS (75 cases) and with the robotic (75 cases) approach by the same surgeon in our centre. Learning curves were analysed using the cumulative sum method to assess the trends for total operating time and surgical failure (intraoperative complications, conversion, technical postoperative complications and reintervention) across case sequences. Subsequently, using adequate statistical tests, we compared the postoperative outcomes in both groups. RESULTS: The median operating time was similar for both approaches (P = 0.401). Surgical failure rate was higher for the robotic cases (21.3% vs 12%; P = 0.125). Based on cumulative sum analyses, operating time decreased starting with case 34 in the VATS group and with case 32 in the robotic cohort. Surgical failure tended to decline starting with case 28 in the VATS group and with case 32 in the robotic group. Perioperative results were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: When we compared robotic and VATS learning curves for anatomical lung resection, we did not find any differences. Postoperative outcomes were also similar with both approaches.