Comparison of short-term outcomes between full-port robotic and thoracoscopic mediastinal tumor resection: A propensity score matching study
- VernacularTitle:全孔机器人与胸腔镜纵隔肿物切除术近期疗效对比的倾向性评分匹配研究
- Author:
Jun WANG
1
;
Jiaying ZHAO
1
;
Ran XU
1
;
Tong LU
1
;
Pengfei ZHANG
1
;
Lidong QU
1
;
Linyou ZHANG
1
Author Information
1. Department of Thoracic Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150086, P. R. China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Robot-assisted thoracic surgery;
video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery;
mediastinal tumor;
propensity score matching
- From:
Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2022;29(04):424-429
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To analyze and compare the perioperative efficacy difference between full-port Da Vinci robotic surgery and thoracoscopic surgery in patients with mediastinal tumor resection. Methods The data of 232 patients with mediastinal tumors treated by the same operator in the Department of Thoracic Surgery of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University were included. There were 103 (44.4%) males and 129 (55.6%) females, with an average age of 49.7 years. According to the surgical methods, they were divided into a robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) group (n=113) and a video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) group (n=119). After 1 : 1 propensity score matching, 57 patients in the RATS group and 57 patients in the VATS group were obtained. Results The RATS group was better than the VATS group in the visual analogue scale pain score on the first day after the surgery [3.0 (2.0, 4.0) points vs. 4.0 (3.0, 5.0) points], postoperative hospital stay time [4.0 (3.0, 5.5) d vs. 6.0 (5.0, 7.0) d] and postoperative catheterization time [2.0 (2.0, 3.0) d vs. 3.0 (3.0, 4.0) d] (all P<0.05). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complications, postoperative thoracic closed drainage catheter placement rate or postoperative total drainage volume (all P>0.05). The total hospitalization costs [51 271.0 (44 166.0, 57 152.0) yuan vs. 35 814.0 (33 418.0, 39 312.0) yuan], operation costs [37 659.0 (32 217.0, 41 511.0) yuan vs. 19 640.0 (17 008.0, 21 421.0) yuan], anesthesia costs [3 307.0 (2 530.0, 3 823.0) yuan vs. 2 059.0 (1 577.0, 2 887.0) yuan] and drug and examination costs [9 241.0 (7 987.0, 12 332.0) yuan vs. 14 143.0 (11 620.0, 16 750.0) yuan] in the RATS group was higher than those in the VATS group (all P<0.05). Conclusion Robotic surgery and thoracoscopic surgery can be done safely and effectively. Compared with thoracoscopic surgery, robotic surgery has less postoperative pain, shorter tube-carrying time, and less postoperative hospital stay, which can significantly speed up the postoperative recovery of patients. However, the cost of robotic surgery is higher than that of thoracoscopic surgery, which increases the economic burden of patients and is also one of the main reasons for preventing the popularization of robotic surgery.
