Comparing perioperative outcomes in video-assisted thoracic surgery and robot-assisted thoracic surgery in lung cancer surgeries: a single-centre experience

BackgroundLung cancer continues to be the primary cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, with surgical resection recognised as the gold standard for non-small cell lung cancer. Recent innovations in thoracic surgery, including video-assisted thoracic surgery and robotic-assisted thoracic surgery, have revolutionised surgical methodologies. This study seeks to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of video-assisted thoracic surgery and robotic-assisted thoracic surgery in lung cancer procedures, concentrating on postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and overall efficacy based on a single-centre experience.ResultsA total of 269 lung resections were conducted, with 176 (65.4%) completed using video-assisted thoracic surgery and 93 (34.6%) utilising robotic-assisted thoracic surgery. No notable disparities were observed in demographics or preoperative characteristics between the groups. The overall complication rates were 13.1% for video-assisted thoracic surgery and 16.1% for robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (p = 0.507). No substantial changes were observed in specific problems, such as air leaks and infections. The average postoperative duration was 3.26 days for video-assisted thoracic surgery and 3.70 days for robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (p = 0.252), with a 30-day mortality rate of 0.6% for video-assisted thoracic surgery and 0% for robotic-assisted thoracic surgery.ConclusionsVideo-assisted thoracic surgery and robotic-assisted thoracic surgery produce similar perioperative results in lung cancer procedures, showing no statistically significant differences in complications, length of hospital stay, or fatality rates. These findings correspond with the current literature, indicating that although robotic-assisted thoracic surgery may present specific benefits, the overall efficacy of both strategies is comparable. Future research using larger cohorts is crucial to gain a more in-depth understanding of these techniques and their long-term effects on patient outcomes.