Objectives: Both robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) and uniportal video-assisted thoracic surgery (UVATS) are minimally invasive surgical techniques used for treatment of lung cancer. However, no research studies comparing early outcomes between RATS and UVATS have been reported.
Methods: Non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with RATS or UVATS at our institution from January 2015 to September 2016 were enrolled. Early outcomes were compared after propensity score-matched analysis using 4 factors: age, gender, tumour size and operative procedure.
Results: A total of 153 patients were included in this study: 76 patients underwent RATS and 77 patients underwent UVATS. After propensity score-matched analysis, each group included 69 cases. The comparison of the 2 groups showed that there were no significant differences in operative time, postoperative hospital stay, chest tube duration, analgesic usage, complications or the number of resected lymph nodes. However, RATS caused less intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.037) and more dissected lymph node stations (P = 0.014).
Conclusions: Judging from the short-term outcomes, both RATS and UVATS are safe and feasible for non-small-cell lung cancer treatment. In particular, RATS is better able to reduce bleeding and complete lymphadenectomy than UVATS.
Keywords: Early outcomes; Non-small-cell lung cancer; Propensity score-matched analysis; Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery; Uniportal video-assisted thoracic surgery.
© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.