Dataset Information

Robot-assisted thoracic surgery versus video-assisted thoracic surgery for treatment of patients with thymoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Surgical resection of the thymus is indicated in the presence of primary thymic diseases such as thymoma. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) offer a minimally invasive approach to thymectomy. However, there is no clear conclusion whether RATS can achieve an equal or even better surgical effect when compared with VATS in treatment of thymoma. We performed this meta-analysis to explore and compare the outcomes of RATS versus VATS for thymectomy in patients with thymoma.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Medline, and Web of Science databases were searched for full-text literature citations. The quality of the articles was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the data analyzed using Review Manager 5.3 software. Fixed or random effect models were applied according to heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis was conducted.

Results

A total of 11 studies with 1418 patients, of whom 688 patients were in the RATS group and 730 in the VATS group, were involved in the analysis. Compared with VATS, RATS was associated with less blood loss in operation, lower volume of drainage, fewer postoperative pleural drainage days, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and fewer postoperative complications. There was no significant difference in operative time and patients with or without myasthenia gravis between the two groups.

Conclusions

RATS has more advantages over VATS, indicating that RATS is better than VATS in terms of postoperative recovery. We look forward to more large-sample, high-quality randomized controlled studies published in the future.

SUBMITTER: Shen C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8758429 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPrevious studies have compared robot-assisted thoracic surgery(RATS) with video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) in the treatment of patients with lung cancer, but results were conflicting. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of RATS with VATS in the treatment of patients with lung cancer.Materials and methodsWeb of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials or prospective cohort studies comparing the clinical outcomes of RATS and VATS from inception to 22 July 2023. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess risk of bias. Meta-analyses of length of hospital stay, postoperative duration of drainage, postoperative complications, operative time, conversion, estimated blood loss, the number of dissected lymph nodes and stations, 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality were performed.ResultsIn total 5 studies were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 614 patients were included, of which 299 patients were treated by RATS and 315 patients treated by VATS. Blood loss was significantly less in RATS group than that in VATS (MD = -17.14, 95% CI -29.96 ~ -4.33, P = 0.009). More nodes stations were dissected in RATS group compared with VATS group(MD= 1.07, 95% CI 0.79 ~ 1.36, P < 0.001). No significant difference occurred between RATS and VATS in length of hospital stay(MD= -0.19, 95% CI -0.98~0.61), readmission(OR=0.74, 95%CI 0.36~1.51, P=0.41), operative time(MD=11.43 95% CI -8.41~31.26, P=0.26), conversion(OR=0.58, 95% CI 0.29~1.17, P=0.13), number of dissected lymph nodes(MD=0.98, 95% CI -0.02~1.97, P=0.05), upstaging rate(OR =0.67, 95% CI 0.38 ~ 1.18, P =0.16, I2 = 0%), time of chest tube drainage (MD= -0.34, 95%CI -0.84~0.15, P=0.17), post-operative complications(OR=0.76, 95% CI 0.52~ 1.11, P=0.16) and total cost(MD = 3103.48, 95% CI -575.78 ~ 6782.74, P=0.1, I2 = 99%).ConclusionRATS is a feasible and safe treatment that can achieve better surgical outcomes compared with VATS in terms of short-term outcomes. Except of higher total cost, RATS has obvious advantage in lymphadenectomy and control of intraoperative bleeding. However, large sample and long follow-up randomized clinical trials comparing RATS with VATS are still necessary to better demonstrate the advantages of RATS for lung cancer.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, Identifier CRD42023446653.

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:BackgroundVideo-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) generally involves endotracheal intubation under general anesthesia. However, inevitably, this may cause intubation-related complications and prolong the postoperative recovery process. Gradually, non-intubated video-assisted thoracic surgery (NIVATS) is increasingly being utilized. However, its safety and efficacy remain controversial.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to August 2020 were selected from the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases and included in this study according to the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers screened these RCTs and independently extracted the relevant data. After assessing the risk of bias in these RCTs, a meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Pooled data were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model.ResultsMeta-analysis data demonstrated that the mean difference (MD) in the length of hospital stay between non-intubated patients and intubated patients was -1.41 days, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of -2.47 to -0.34 (P=0.01). The visual analogue scale (VAS) score between the two groups showed a MD of -0.34 (95% CI: -0.58 to -0.10; P=0.006). Patients who underwent NIVATS presented with lower rates of overall complications [odds ratio (OR) 0.41; 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.67; P=0.0004], air leak (OR 0.45; 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.87; P=0.02), pharyngeal discomfort (OR 0.08; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.17; P<0.00001), hoarseness (OR 0.06; 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.21; P<0.00001), and gastrointestinal reactions (OR 0.23; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.53; P=0.0005) compared to intubated patients. The anesthesia satisfaction scores in the NIVATS group were significantly higher than those of the VATS group (MD 0.50; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.88; P=0.009). However, there were no statistically significant differences in the length of operation time (MD 0.90 hours; 95% CI: -0.23 to 2.03; P=0.12) and surgical field satisfaction (1 point) (OR 0.73; 95% CI: 0.34 to 1.59; P=0.43) between the two groups.ConclusionsNIVATS is a safe and feasible form of intervention that can reduce the postoperative pain and complications of various systems and shorten hospital stay duration without prolonging the operation time.