Project description:BackgroundThe major advantages of robot-assisted surgery are the fine field of view provided by the high-precision three-dimensional (3D) images and the good operability provided by the robotic arms that enables precise movements. A growing number of retrospective studies have compared robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) with video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), but the number of cases is limited and the results are contradictory.MethodsWe studied the medical records of primary lung cancer patients who underwent lobectomy with lymph node dissection between 2017 and 2020. Four hundred and eleven patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria in this study (RATS: 103; VATS: 308). We compared the perioperative factors and postoperative results of the VATS and RATS groups. Further, we adjusted background factors using propensity score matching (PSM) then compared the results of 200 patients (100 patients in each group). In this study, we matched interlobar fissure completeness, which affects operative difficulty and operative time; however, this has been superficially compared in previous studies.ResultsAfter PSM, a significant difference was observed in the intraoperative blood loss (RATS: 53.3 mL, VATS: 120.3 mL, P=0.04). The rates of surgical complications were comparable between the groups (10.0% vs. 13.0%, P=0.66) with similar mean operation times (RATS: 215.0 min, VATS: 210.1 min, P=0.57). The mean postoperative stay in the RATS group was shorter than that in the VATS group (10.0 vs. 11.5 days, P=0.04).ConclusionsInitial experience of RATS had no obvious drawbacks when compared with that of VATS on propensity-matched analysis.
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has impacted cancer care globally. The aim of this study is to analyze the impact of COVID-19 on cancer healthcare from the perspective of patients with cancer.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted between June 19, 2020, to August 7, 2020, using a questionnaire designed by patients awaiting cancer surgery. We examined the impact of COVID-19 on five domains (financial status, healthcare access, stress, anxiety, and depression) and their relationship with various patient-related variables. Factors likely to determine the influence of COVID-19 on patient care were analyzed.ResultsA significant adverse impact was noted in all five domains (p = < 0.05), with the maximal impact felt in the domain of financial status followed by healthcare access. Patients with income levels of INR < 35 K (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.61, p < 0.05), and 35K- 100 K (AOR = 1.96, p < 0.05), married patients (AOR = 3.30, p < 0.05), and rural patients (AOR = 2.82, p < 0.05) experienced the most adverse COVID-19-related impact.ConclusionDelivering quality cancer care in low to middle-income countries is a challenge even in normal times. During this pandemic, deficiencies in this fragile healthcare delivery system were exacerbated. Identification of vulnerable groups of patients and strategic utilization of available resources becomes even more important during global catastrophes, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Further work is required in these avenues to not only address the current pandemic but also any potential future crises.
Project description:ObjectivesLymph node dissection (LND) with robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) in lung cancer surgery has not been fully evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare LND surgical results between video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and RATS.MethodsWe retrospectively compared perioperative parameters, including the incidence of LND-associated complications (chylothorax, recurrent and/or phrenic nerve paralysis and bronchopleural fistula), lymph node (LN) counts and postoperative locoregional recurrence, among 390 patients with primary lung cancer who underwent lobectomy and mediastinal LND by RATS (n = 104) or VATS (n = 286) at our institution.ResultsThe median total dissected LN numbers significantly differed between the RATS and the VATS groups (RATS: 18, VATS: 15; P < 0.001). They also significantly differed in right upper zone and hilar (#2R + #4R + #10L) (RATS: 12, VATS: 10; P = 0.002), left lower paratracheal and hilar (#4L + #10L) (RATS: 4, VATS: 3; P = 0.019), aortopulmonary zone (#5 + #6) (RATS: 3, VATS: 2; P = 0.001) and interlobar and lobar (#11 + #12) LNs (RATS: 7, VATS: 6; P = 0.041). The groups did not significantly differ in overall nodal upstaging (P = 0.64), total blood loss (P = 0.69) or incidence of LND-associated complications (P = 0.77).ConclusionsIn this comparison, it was suggested that more LNs could be dissected using RATS than VATS, especially in bilateral superior mediastinum and hilar regions. Accumulation of more cases and longer observation periods are needed to verify whether RATS can provide the acceptable quality of LND and local control of lung cancer.
Project description:BackgroundIt remains no clear conclusion about which is better between robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) and video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) for the treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to compare the short-term and long-term efficacy between RATS and VATS for NSCLC.MethodsPubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Medline, and Web of Science databases were comprehensively searched for studies published before December 2020. The quality of the articles was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the data analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3 software. Fixed or random effect models were applied according to heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted.ResultsA total of 18 studies including 11,247 patients were included in the meta-analyses, of which 5114 patients were in the RATS group and 6133 in the VATS group. Compared with VATS, RATS was associated with less blood loss (WMD = - 50.40, 95% CI -90.32 ~ - 10.48, P = 0.010), lower conversion rate (OR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.43 ~ 0.60, P < 0.001), more harvested lymph nodes (WMD = 1.72, 95% CI 0.63 ~ 2.81, P = 0.002) and stations (WMD = 0.51, 95% CI 0.15 ~ 0.86, P = 0.005), shorter duration of postoperative chest tube drainage (WMD = - 0.61, 95% CI -0.78 ~ - 0.44, P < 0.001) and hospital stay (WMD = - 1.12, 95% CI -1.58 ~ - 0.66, P < 0.001), lower overall complication rate (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 ~ 0.99, P = 0.020), lower recurrence rate (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 ~ 0.72, P < 0.001), and higher cost (WMD = 3909.87 USD, 95% CI 3706.90 ~ 4112.84, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between RATS and VATS in operative time, mortality, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Sensitivity analysis showed that no significant differences were found between the two techniques in conversion rate, number of harvested lymph nodes and stations, and overall complication.ConclusionsThe results revealed that RATS is a feasible and safe technique compared with VATS in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes. Moreover, more randomized controlled trials comparing the two techniques with rigorous study designs are still essential to evaluate the value of robotic surgery for NSCLC.
Project description:BackgroundRobot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) lobectomy for lung cancer is now performed all around the world. The camera and robotic devices are generally inserted from a low position via the thorax. We previously reported our original anterior approach (AA) for performing RATS lobectomy with a camera and robotic devices inserted via the anterior chest wall. However, whether AA is comparable or superior to the conventional approach (CA) remains unclear.MethodsA total of 108 patients who underwent RATS lobectomy were included in the current study. We compared the AA with the CA for performing RATS lobectomy in terms of the operative and postoperative features, such as total operation/console time, blood loss and postoperative complications.ResultsEighty-seven and 21 patients underwent the AA and CA in RATS lobectomy, respectively. The console and total operation time were significantly shorter in the AA group than in the CA group for RATS lobectomy (median console time: AA vs. CA, 112 vs. 148 min, P=0.0001; median total operation time: AA vs. CA, 193 vs. 243 min, P=0.0002), especially left upper lobectomy. Intraoperative blood loss and the frequency of postoperative complications were significantly reduced in the AA group compared with the CA group (median intraoperative blood loss: AA vs. CA, 20 vs. 105 mL, P<0.0001; postoperative complications: AA vs. CA, 8.0% vs. 28.6%, P=0.0088).ConclusionsThese results suggest that our AA of RATS lobectomy can be very easily and safely performed.
Project description:PurposeThis study aims to investigate the feasibility of robot-assisted simulated strabismus surgery using the new da Vinci Xi Surgical System and to report what we believe is the first use of a surgical robot in experimental eye muscle surgery.MethodsRobot-assisted strabismus surgeries were performed on a strabismus eye model using the robotic da Vinci Xi Surgical System. On the lateral rectus of each eye, we performed a procedure including, successively, a 4-mm plication followed by a 4-mm recession of the muscle to end with a 4-mm resection. Operative time from conjunctival opening to closing and successful completion of the different steps with or without complications or unexpected events were assessed.ResultsRobot-assisted strabismus procedures were successfully performed on six eyes. The feasibility of robot-assisted simulated strabismus surgery is confirmed. The da Vinci Xi system provided the appropriate dexterity and operative field visualization necessary to perform conjunctival and Tenon's capsule opening and closing, muscle identification, suturing, desinsertion, sectioning, and resuturing. The mean duration to complete the whole procedure was 27 minutes (range, 22-35). There were no complications or unexpected intraoperative events.ConclusionsExperimental robot-assisted strabismus surgery is technically feasible using the new robotic da Vinci Xi Surgical System. This is, to our knowledge, the first use of a surgical robot in ocular muscle surgery.Translational relevanceFurther experimentation will allow the advantages of robot-assisted microsurgery to be identified while underlining the improvements and innovations necessary for clinical use.