Short-term efficacy and cost analysis of Da Vinci robot-assisted thoracic surgery versus video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for non-small cell lung cancer
- VernacularTitle:达芬奇机器人手术与胸腔镜手术治疗非小细胞肺癌的短期疗效及成本分析
- Author:
Ziqiang HONG
1
;
Wenxi GOU
2
;
Yingjie LU
3
;
Xiangdou BAI
1
;
Baiqiang CUI
1
;
Dacheng JIN
4
;
Yunjiu GOU
4
Author Information
1. 1. The First Clinical Department of Gansu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, 730000, P. R. China 2. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, 730000, P. R. China
2. Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, P. R. China
3. The First Clinical Department of Gansu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, 730000, P. R. China
4. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, 730000, P. R. China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Robot-assisted thoracic surgery;
video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery;
non-small cell lung cancer;
cost analysis
- From:
Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2024;31(07):974-979
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To evaluate the short-term outcomes and hospital costs of robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) versus video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for non-small cell lung cancer. Methods The clinical data of patients who underwent lobectomy or sublobar resection for non-small cell lung cancer completed by the same operator in the Department of Thoracic Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital from June 2016 to June 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the surgery approach, the patients were divided into a RATS group and a VATS group. The clinical data of the two groups were compared. Results A total of 516 patients were enrolled. There were 254 patients in the RATS group, including 103 males and 151 females, with a mean age of 60.0±4.2 years, and 262 patients in the VATS group, including 126 males and 136 females, with a mean age of 59.5±4.3 years. All patients in both groups successfully completed radical lung cancer surgery with no perioperative death. In terms of intraoperative bleeding (63.4±13.3 mL vs. 92.5±23.5 mL), postoperative drainage time (4.1±0.9 d vs. 4.7±1.2 d), postoperative hospital stay time (5.6±1.1 d vs. 6.7±1.4 d), number of lymph nodes dissected (17.9±2.1 vs. 13.9±1.4) and groups of lymph nodes dissected (5.4±0.8 groups vs. 4.4±1.0 groups), the RATS group had an advantage, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). In terms of operative time and total postoperative chest drainage, the VATS group had an advantage, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative complications or intraoperative conversion to thoractomy (P>0.05). The total hospitalization, surgical and total consumables costs of the RATS group were higher than those in the VATS group (P<0.05). In terms of other costs and consumables costs (one-time costs of purely high-value consumables after deduction of robot-specific costs), the VATS group was higher than the RATS group (P<0.05). Conclusion RATS offers technical and short-term efficacy advantages, but comes with the disadvantage of high costs. Thoracic surgeons can make full use of the features of the robotic surgery system, exploiting its potential to continuously improve and optimize techniques and reduce the use of high-value consumables, thus achieving efficiency and cost reductions and allowing robotic surgery to reach more patients.
