Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 19, 2025
Robot-assisted Total Mesorectal Excision and Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Locally Advanced Middle-low Rectal Cancer
Published on: February 12, 2022
Robot-assisted thoracic surgery versus video-assisted thoracic surgery for mediastinal lesions
Takahiro Ochi1, Hidemi Suzuki1, Yuki Hirai1
1Department of General Thoracic Surgery, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba, Japan.
Background:
Robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) has become widely used for mediastinal procedures since 2018 when it was included in insurance coverage in Japan. Few studies have compared the surgical outcomes of RATS with the more established video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) approach to mediastinal surgery. We aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of VATS and RATS to examine the advantages of the RATS approach in a single institutional cohort.
Methods:
A total of 144 patients who underwent VATS and 46 who underwent RATS mediastinal surgery between 2014 and 2022 were enrolled. We compared clinicopathological features such as age, sex, smoking history, respiratory function, surgical field, laterality, surgical procedure, board certification of the surgeon, and histology between the two groups. Perioperative outcomes including operation time, volume of blood lost, number of conversion cases to open surgery, duration of chest drainage, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complications were also reviewed.
Results:
The comparison of patient characteristics between the groups showed significant differences in median age (VATS, 52.5 years; RATS, 67.0 years; P=0.001), combined resection of surrounding tissues of the tumor (VATS, 2.1%; RATS, 10.9%; P=0.02), board certification of the surgeon (VATS, 53.5%; RATS, 100.0%; P<0.001), and histology (RATS group had a higher percentage of thymic epithelial tumors, P=0.01). Regarding perioperative outcomes, the median operation time was 120 min in the VATS group and 88 min in the RATS group, showing a significant difference (P=0.03). There were no significant differences in the volume of blood lost, incidence of conversion to open chest surgery, duration of chest drainage, postoperative length of stay in hospital, and incidence of perioperative complications. In the perioperative outcomes of cases operated on by board-certified surgeons, the median operation time (VATS, 117 min; RATS, 88 min; P=0.02) and median postoperative length of stay in hospital (VATS, 7 days; RATS, 6 days; P=0.001) showed significant differences, while other postoperative outcomes were not significantly different.
Conclusions:
RATS for mediastinal surgery is as safe as the VATS approach and may result in a shorter operative time and postoperative hospital stay. Further analysis of RATS for mediastinal surgery in a larger cohort is warranted.
