Short-term outcomes of two different robotic approaches for patients with lung cancer: a propensity score-matched study
10.3760/cma.j.cn112434-20200702-00322
- VernacularTitle:基于倾向评分匹配的两种机器人肺癌手术方法效果比较
- Author:
Xiao SUN
1
;
Hao WANG
;
Peng GAO
;
Yubo WANG
;
Wenjie JIAO
Author Information
1. 青岛大学附属医院胸外科 266071
- From:
Chinese Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2020;36(9):543-548
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the short-term outcomes between robotic completely portal surgery and robotic-assisted surgery used for lung cancer treatment.Methods:Lung cancer patients treated with robotic surgery in our institution from October 2014 to August 2018 were enrolled. Baseline information and postoperative outcomes were collected. All patients were divided into two approaches and abbreviated as 3-armed utility incision assisted lung surgery(RAL-3) and 4-armed completely portal lung surgery(RPL-4). Short-term outcomes of two approaches were compared after propensity score-matched(PSM) analysis.Results:A total of 471 patients were included in this study: 252 patients underwent robotic-assisted surgery with a utility incision and 219 patients underwent robotic completely portal surgery. After propensity score-matched( PSM) analysis, each group included 159 cases. The comparison of the two groups showed that there were no significant differences in chest tube duration( P=0.307), postoperative hospital stays( P=0.829), analgesics use( P=0.789), the postoperative visual analogue pain score(VAS)( P>0.05), the SF-12 score( P>0.05) and complications( P=0.265). However, RPL-4 caused less blood loss(52.11 ml vs. 70.00 ml, P<0.001) and shorter surgical time of RPL-4(122.74 min vs. 153.16 min, P<0.001). Conclusion:RPL-4 showed relatively shorter operative time and less intraoperative blood loss than RAL-3. Both RAL-3 and RPL-4 are safe and feasible for patients with lung.
