A systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic versus open and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery approaches for lobectomy.

OBJECTIVES

A number of meta-analytical and database studies have sought to compare open, video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and robotic operative approaches to lobectomy, often with conflicting results. Our objective was to perform a comprehensive review of these meta-analytical and database studies published to date.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the PubMed and Scopus databases. Primary outcome was short-term mortality, and secondary outcomes were operative time, blood loss or transfusion rate, hospital stay, conversions, lymph node yield and complications. Meta-analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes were performed.

RESULTS

Robotic lobectomy is a valid alternative to the VATS approach and is superior to the open approach with respect to complications [OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58-0.76, P  < 0.00001] and duration of hospital stay (WMD -1.4, 95% CI -1.96-0.85, P < 0.00001). It is inferior to both VATS and open with respect to operative duration (robotic vs. VATS; WMD 4.98, 95% CI 2.61-7.36, P < 0.001, robotic vs. open WMD 65.56, 95% CI 53.66-77.46, P < 0.00001). Robotic approach is superior with respect to 30-day mortality compared to VATS (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45-0.83, P = 0.001 and open approaches (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33-0.85, P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest published systematic review and meta-analysis to date qualifying the robotic lobectomy as a reasonable alternative to VATS and open surgery. Short-term survival is superior in the robotic cohorts. No definitive conclusions on long-term outcomes can be drawn until a randomized controlled trial comparing approaches is conducted.