Objective: To methodically assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted total rectal mesenteric resection (RTME), laparoscopic-assisted total rectal mesenteric resection (laTME), and transanal total rectal mesenteric resection (taTME). Methods: A computer search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Ovid databases to identify English-language reports published between January 2017 and January 2022 that compared the clinical efficacy of the three surgical procedures of RTME, laTME, and taTME. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the NOS and JADAD scales for retrospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials, respectively. Direct meta-analysis and reticulated meta-analysis were performed using Review Manager software and R software, respectively. Results: Twenty-nine publications comprising 8,339 patients with rectal cancer were ultimately included. The direct meta-analysis indicated that the length of hospital stay was longer after RTME than after taTME, whereas according to the reticulated meta-analysis the length of hospital stay was shorter after taTME than after laTME (MD=-0.86, 95%CI: -1.70 to -0.096, P=0.036). Moreover, the incidence of anastomotic leak was lower after taTME than after RTME (OR=0.60, 95%CI: 0.39 to 0.91, P=0.018). The incidence of intestinal obstruction was also lower after taTME than after RTME (OR=0.55, 95%CI: 0.31 to 0.94, P=0.037). All of these differences were statistically significant (all P<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the three surgical procedures regarding the number of lymph nodes cleared, length of the inferior rectal margin, or rate of positive circumferential margins (all P>0.05). An inconsistency test using nodal analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between the results of direct and indirect comparisons of the six outcome indicators (all P>0.05). Furthermore, we detected no significant overall inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence. Conclusion: taTME has advantages over RTME and laTME, in terms of radical and surgical short-term outcomes in patients with rectal cancer.
Humans ; Robotics ; Robotic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects* ; Network Meta-Analysis ; Retrospective Studies ; Postoperative Complications/etiology* ; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery/methods* ; Rectum/surgery* ; Rectal Neoplasms/pathology* ; Laparoscopy/methods* ; Treatment Outcome

Objective: To investigate the safety and learning curve of Da Vinci robotic single-anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) in the treatment of obesity patients. Methods: A descriptive case series study was performed. Clinical data of obesity patients who were treated with Da Vinci robotic SADI-S in China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University from March 2020 to May 2021 were analyzed retrospectively. Case inclusion criteria: (1) uncomplicated obese patients with body mass index (BMI)≥37.5 kg/m(2); (2) patients with BMI of 28 to <37.5 kg/m(2) complicated with type 2 diabetes or two metabolic syndrome components, or obesity comorbidities; (3) patients undergoing SADI-S by Da Vinci robotic surgery system. Those who received other bariatric procedures other than SADI-S or underwent Da Vince robotic SADI-S as revisional operation were excluded. A total of 77 patients were enrolled in the study, including 31 males and 46 females, with median age of 33 (18-59) years, preoperative body weight of (123.0±26.2) kg, BMI of (42.2±7.1) kg/m(2) and waistline of (127.6±16.3) cm. According to the order of operation date, the patients were numbered as 1-77. The textbook outcome (TO) and Clavien-Dindo grading standard were used to analyze the clinical outcome of each patient and to classify surgical complications, respectively. The standard of textbook outcome was as follows: the operative time less than or equal to the 75th percentile of the patient's operation time (210 min); the postoperative hospital stay less than or equal to the 75th percentile of the patient's postoperative hospital stay (7 d); complication grade lower than Clavien grade II; no readmission; no conversion to laparotomy or death. The patient undergoing robotic SADI-S was considered to meet the TO standard when meeting the above 5 criteria. The TO rate was calculated by cumulative sum analysis (CUSUM) method. The curve was drawn by case number as X-axis and CUSUM (TO rate) as Y-axis so as to understand the learning curve of robotic SADI-S. Results: The operative time of 77 robotic SADI-S was (182.9±37.5) minutes, and the length of postoperative hospital stay was 6 (4-55) days. There was no conversion to laparotomy or death. Seven patients suffered from complications (7/77, 9.1%). Four patients had grade II complications (5.2%), including one with duodeno-ileal anastomotic leakage, one with abdominal bleeding, one with peritoneal effusion and one with delayed gastric emptying; two patients were grade IIIb complications (2.6%) and both of them were diagnosed with gastric leakage; one patient was grade IV complication diagnosed with postoperative respiratory failure (1.3%), and all of them were cured successfully. A total of 51 patients met the textbook outcome standard, and the TO rate was positive and was steadily increasing after the number of surgical cases accumulated to the 46th case. Taking the 46th case as the boundary, all the patients were divided into learning stage group (n=46) and mastery stage group (n=31). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of gender, age, weight, body mass index, waist circumference, ASA classification, standard liver volume, operative time and morbidity of postoperative complication (all P>0.05). The percent of abdominal drainage tube in learning stage group was higher than that in mastery stage group (54.3% versus 16.1%, P<0.05). The length of postoperative hospital stay in learning stage group was longer than that in mastery stage group [6 (4-22) d versus 6 (5-55) d, P<0.05)]. Conclusion: The Da Vinci robotic SADI-S is safe and feasible with a learning curve of 46 cases.
Adult ; Anastomosis, Surgical ; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/surgery* ; Female ; Gastrectomy/methods* ; Gastric Bypass/adverse effects* ; Humans ; Learning Curve ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Obesity/surgery* ; Obesity, Morbid/surgery* ; Retrospective Studies ; Robotic Surgical Procedures

OBJECTIVETo compare the clinical efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic radical surgery in the treatment of middle-low rectal cancers.

METHODSFrom January 2015 to March 2016, intra-operative and postoperative follow-up data of 30 patients with middle-low rectal cancers who underwent robotic radical resection(robot group) and 32 patients with middle-low rectal cancers who underwent laparoscopic radical resection (laparoscopy group)n in our department were retrospectively collected. The distance from cancer to anal margin was less than 10 cm in both two groups and advanced rectal cancers were confirmed by preoperative colonoscopy biopsy. Associated data were compared between two groups.

RESULTSThere were 13 males and 17 females in robot group with age of 27 to 85 (mean 59.7) years, disease course of 3 to 12 (mean 6.2) months and clinical stage T2-3N0-1. There were 16 males and 16 females in laparoscopic group with age of 32 to 79 (mean 60.3) years, disease course of 2 to 10(mean 5.9) months and clinical stage T2-3N0-1. The baseline data of two groups were not significantly different (all P>0.05). All the patients in two groups completed operations successfully without conversion to open operation. Compared with laparoscopic group, the blood loss was less [(100.3±43.7) ml vs. (150.3±68.2) ml, t=3.413, P=0.001], the first flatus time [(49.3±12.4) h vs. (58.6±12.5) h, t=2.838, P=0.006] and urinary catheter removal time [(3.0±0.7) d vs. (4.8±0.9) d, t=5.491, P=0.000] were shorter, while the operation time [(217.3±57.8) min vs. (187.9±23.1) min, t=2.772, P=0.009] was longer in robot group. No cancer tissue was observed in resection margin of two groups. Number of harvested lymph node per case (15.2±7.4 vs. 13.9±4.9, t=-0.764, P=0.448), distance from anal margin to tumor distal edge [(7±3) cm vs. (6.5±3) cm, t=-1.952, P=0.056] and postoperative hospital stay [(13.6±1.3) d vs. (13.8±1.8) d, t=0.925, P=0.359] were not significantly different between two groups. No serious complications occurred in two groups during intra-operative and postoperative period. During following up of 3 to 12 (average 8.7) months, 1 case of anastomotic fistula occurred in each group and was cured by conservative treatment without significant difference [3.3%(1/30) vs. 3.1%(1/32), P=1.000]. No sexual dysfunction was found in either groups. Two cases in laparoscopic group presented relapse and metastasis, but no recurrence and metastasis was observed in robot group. There was no death in two groups.

CONCLUSIONRobotic radical surgery in the treatment of middle-low rectal cancers is safe and effective with the advantages of less trauma, less bleeding, rapid recovery of intestinal function and urinary function.

Adult ; Aged ; Blood Loss, Surgical ; Comparative Effectiveness Research ; Defecation ; Digestive System Surgical Procedures ; adverse effects ; methods ; Female ; Fistula ; etiology ; surgery ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; adverse effects ; Length of Stay ; Lymph Node Excision ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Metastasis ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local ; Operative Time ; Postoperative Period ; Recovery of Function ; Rectal Neoplasms ; surgery ; Retrospective Studies ; Robotic Surgical Procedures ; adverse effects ; Treatment Outcome ; Urination

OBJECTIVETo compare clinically relevant postoperative complications after open, laparoscopic, and robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

METHODSClinical data of patients with gastric cancer who underwent gastrectomy between January 1, 2014 and October 1, 2016 at Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital were analyzed retrospectively. All the patients were diagnosed by upper endoscopy and confirmed by biopsy without distant metastasis. They were confirmed with R0 resection by postoperative pathology. Patients with incomplete data were excluded. The complications among open group, laparoscopic group and robotic group were compared. The continuous variables were analyzed by one-way ANOVA, and categorical variables were analyzed by χtest or Fisher exact test.

RESULTSA total of 1 791 patients (1 320 males and 471 females) were included in the study, aged from 17 to 98 (59.0±11.6) years, comprising 922 open, 673 laparoscopic and 196 robotic gastrectomies. There were no significant differences among three groups in baseline data (gender, age, BMI, comorbidity, radiochemotherapy) and some of operative or postoperative data (blood transfusion, number of lymph node dissection, combined organ resection, resection site, N stage, postoperative hospital stay). The blood loss in laparoscopic and robotic groups was significantly lower than that in open group[(185.7±139.6) ml and (194.0±187.6) ml vs. (348.2±408.5) ml, F=59.924, P=0.000]. The postoperative complication occurred in 197 of 1 791(11.0%) patients. The Clavien-Dindo II(, III(a, III(b, IIII(a, and IIIII( complications were 5.5%, 4.0%, 1.2%, 0.1%, and 0.2% respectively. The anastomotic leakage (2.4%), intestinal obstruction(1.3%) and pulmonary infection(1.2%) were the three most common complications, followed by wound infection(0.8%), cardiovascular disease(0.7%), anastomotic bleeding (0.7%), delayed gastric emptying (0.6%), duodenal stump fistula(0.5%), intraperitoneal hemorrhage (0.5%), pancreatic fistula (0.3%), intra-abdominal infection(0.2%), chylous leakage (0.1%) and other complications(1.7%). There were no significant differences among three groups as the complication rates of open, laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy were 10.6%(98/922), 10.8%(73/673) and 13.3%(26/196) respectively (χ=1.173, P=0.566). But anastomotic leakage occurred more common after laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy compared to open gastrectomy [3.1%(21/673) and 5.1%(10/196) vs. 1.3%(12/922), χ=12.345, P=0.002]. The rate of cardiocerebral vascular diseases was higher in open group[1.3%(12/922) vs. 0.1%(1/673) and 0, χ=8.786, P=0.012]. And the rate of anastomotic bleeding was higher in robotic group [2.0%(4/196) vs. open 0.4%(4/922) and laparoscopic 0.6%(4/673), χ=6.365, P=0.041]. In view of Clavien-Dindo classification, III(a complications occurred more common in laparoscopic group [5.5%(37/673) vs. open 3.3%(30/922) and robotic 2.6%(5/196), χ=6.308, P=0.043] and III(b complications occurred more common in robotic group [3.1%(6/196) vs. open 1.1%(10/922) and laparoscopic 0.7%(5/673), χ=7.167, P=0.028].

CONCLUSIONSMorbidities of postoperative complications are comparable among open, laparoscopic and robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer. However, in consideration of the high difficulty of anastomosis, the minimally invasive surgery should be performed by more experienced surgeons.

Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Anastomotic Leak ; epidemiology ; etiology ; Blood Loss, Surgical ; statistics & numerical data ; Cerebrovascular Disorders ; epidemiology ; etiology ; Chylous Ascites ; epidemiology ; etiology ; Comorbidity ; Comparative Effectiveness Research ; Duodenal Diseases ; epidemiology ; etiology ; Female ; Gastrectomy ; adverse effects ; methods ; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage ; epidemiology ; etiology ; Gastroparesis ; epidemiology ; etiology ; Gastroscopy ; Hemoperitoneum ; epidemiology ; etiology ; Humans ; Intestinal Fistula ; epidemiology ; etiology ; Intraabdominal Infections ; epidemiology ; etiology ; Laparoscopy ; adverse effects ; Length of Stay ; Lymph Node Excision ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Postoperative Complications ; epidemiology ; etiology ; Postoperative Hemorrhage ; epidemiology ; etiology ; Postoperative Period ; Respiratory Tract Infections ; epidemiology ; etiology ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Assessment ; Robotic Surgical Procedures ; adverse effects ; Stomach Neoplasms ; surgery ; Surgical Wound Infection ; epidemiology ; etiology

With the rapid advancement of minimally invasive new technology, laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery are now regarded as the main direction in surgical treatment for stomach cancers. Recent evidence has confirmed the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic surgery for early gastric cancer and advanced gastric cancer. However, gastrointestinal surgeons should pay more attention to complications after laparoscopic gastrectomy because of rich blood supply, complex tissue layers and lymph node metastasis. Common complications related to laparoscopic surgery are associated with laparoscopic instruments and operating, intra-abdominal bleeding, anastomotic leakage, anastomotic bleeding, pancreatic leakage, duodenal stump leakage, lymphatic leakage and so on. This article mainly focuses on the causes, prevention and treatment of the complications after laparoscopic gastrectomy.
Anastomotic Leak ; Duodenal Diseases ; Female ; Gastrectomy ; adverse effects ; instrumentation ; methods ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; adverse effects ; instrumentation ; methods ; Lymphatic Metastasis ; Male ; Postoperative Complications ; etiology ; prevention & control ; therapy ; Robotic Surgical Procedures ; adverse effects ; instrumentation ; methods ; Stomach Neoplasms ; complications ; surgery

Objective: To compare the clinical effects of transperitoneal (Tp) versus extraperitoneal (Ep) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, CNKI, and CBM for the articles comparing the clinical effect Tp-RARP with that of Ep-RARP in the treatment of localized prostate cancer published from January 2000 to November 2016. All the articles must meet the inclusion criteria, that is, dealing with at least one of the following aspects: operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative catheterization time, length of bed confinement, perioperative complications, positive surgical margins, bowel-related complications, postoperative anastomotic leakage, and postoperative urinary continence. We subjected the data obtained to statistical analysis using the RevMan5.3 software. RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials and six case-control studies were included in this meta-analysis, involving 451 cases of Tp-RARP and 676 cases of Ep-RARP. Compared with Tp-RARP, Ep-RARP showed significantly shorter operation time (WMD = 21.39, 95% CI: 7.54－35.24, P = 0.002), shorter length of bed confinement (WMD = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.61－1.09, P <0.001), and lower rate of bowel-related complications (RR = 9.74, 95% CI: 3.26－29.07, P <0.001). However, no statistically significant differences were found between the two strategies in intraoperative blood loss (WMD = －8.12, 95% CI: －27.86－11.63, P = 0.42), postoperative catheterization time (WMD = 0.17, 95% CI: －0.55－0.21, P = 0.38), or the rates of perioperative complications (RR = 1.34, 95% CI: －0.97－1.87, P = 0.08), positive surgical margins (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.95－1.61, P = 0.12), anastomotic leakage (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.46－2.10, P = 0.95), urinary continence at 3 months (RR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.91－1.00, P = 0.05) and urinary continence at 6 months (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.97－1.02, P = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS Ep-RARP has the advantages of shorter operation time, shorter length of bed confinement and lower rate of bowel-related complications over Tp-RARP, and therefore may be a better option for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. However, more multi-centered randomized controlled clinical trials are needed for further evaluation of these two approaches.
Blood Loss, Surgical ; Case-Control Studies ; Humans ; Male ; Margins of Excision ; Operative Time ; Postoperative Complications ; Prostatectomy ; adverse effects ; methods ; Prostatic Neoplasms ; pathology ; surgery ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Robotic Surgical Procedures ; adverse effects ; methods ; Treatment Outcome

PURPOSE: To systematically update evidence on the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) in patients with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic databases, including ovidMEDLINE, ovidEMBASE, the Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, KMbase, and others, were searched, collecting data from January 1980 to August 2013. The quality of selected systematic reviews was assessed using the revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews and the modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for non-randomized studies. RESULTS: A total of 61 studies were included, including 38 from two previous systematic reviews rated as best available evidence and 23 additional studies that were more recent. There were no randomized controlled trials. Regarding safety, the risk of complications was lower for RARP than for RRP. Among functional outcomes, the risk of urinary incontinence was lower and potency rate was significantly higher for RARP than for RRP. Regarding oncologic outcomes, positive margin rates were comparable between groups, and although biochemical recurrence (BCR) rates were lower for RARP than for RRP, recurrence-free survival was similar after long-term follow up. CONCLUSION: RARP might be favorable to RRP in regards to post-operative complications, peri-operative outcomes, and functional outcomes. Positive margin and BCR rates were comparable between the two procedures. As most of studies were of low quality, the results presented should be interpreted with caution, and further high quality studies controlling for selection, confounding, and selective reporting biases with longer-term follow-up are needed to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of RARP.
Humans ; Male ; Postoperative Complications/*etiology ; Prostatectomy/*adverse effects/methods ; Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery ; Robotic Surgical Procedures/*adverse effects ; Treatment Outcome ; Urinary Incontinence/etiology

OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical outcomes and cost of robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) versus robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) in early stage endometrial cancer. METHODS: This is a retrospective case-control study, comparing perioperative outcomes and costs of RSSH and RMPH in early stage endometrial cancer patients. RSSH were matched 1:2 according to age, body mass index, comorbidity, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetric (FIGO) stage, type of radical surgery, histologic type, and grading. Mean hospital cost per discharge was calculated summarizing the cost of daily hospital room charges, operating room, cost of supplies and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 23 women who underwent RSSH were matched with 46 historic controls treated by RMPH in the same institute, with the same surgical team. No significant differences were found in terms of age, histologic type, stage, and grading. Operative time was similar: 102.5 minutes in RMPH and 110 in RSSH (p=0.889). Blood loss was lower in RSSH than in RMPH (respectively, 50 mL vs. 100 mL, p=0.001). Hospital stay was 3 days in RMPH and 2 days in RSSH (p=0.001). No intraoperative complications occurred in both groups. Early postoperative complications were 2.2% in RMPH and 4.3% in RSSH. Overall cost was higher in RMPH than in RSSH (respectively, $7,772.15 vs. $5,181.06). CONCLUSION: Our retrospective study suggests the safety and feasibility of RSSH for staging early endometrial cancer without major differences from the RMPH in terms of surgical outcomes, but with lower hospital costs. Certainly, further studies are eagerly warranted to confirm our findings.
Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Case-Control Studies ; Endometrial Neoplasms/economics/*surgery ; Female ; Health Care Costs ; Humans ; Hysterectomy/adverse effects/*methods ; Middle Aged ; Postoperative Complications/epidemiology ; Retrospective Studies ; Robotic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects/economics/*methods

OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical outcomes and cost of robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) versus robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) in early stage endometrial cancer. METHODS: This is a retrospective case-control study, comparing perioperative outcomes and costs of RSSH and RMPH in early stage endometrial cancer patients. RSSH were matched 1:2 according to age, body mass index, comorbidity, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetric (FIGO) stage, type of radical surgery, histologic type, and grading. Mean hospital cost per discharge was calculated summarizing the cost of daily hospital room charges, operating room, cost of supplies and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 23 women who underwent RSSH were matched with 46 historic controls treated by RMPH in the same institute, with the same surgical team. No significant differences were found in terms of age, histologic type, stage, and grading. Operative time was similar: 102.5 minutes in RMPH and 110 in RSSH (p=0.889). Blood loss was lower in RSSH than in RMPH (respectively, 50 mL vs. 100 mL, p=0.001). Hospital stay was 3 days in RMPH and 2 days in RSSH (p=0.001). No intraoperative complications occurred in both groups. Early postoperative complications were 2.2% in RMPH and 4.3% in RSSH. Overall cost was higher in RMPH than in RSSH (respectively, $7,772.15 vs. $5,181.06). CONCLUSION: Our retrospective study suggests the safety and feasibility of RSSH for staging early endometrial cancer without major differences from the RMPH in terms of surgical outcomes, but with lower hospital costs. Certainly, further studies are eagerly warranted to confirm our findings.
Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Case-Control Studies ; Endometrial Neoplasms/economics/*surgery ; Female ; Health Care Costs ; Humans ; Hysterectomy/adverse effects/*methods ; Middle Aged ; Postoperative Complications/epidemiology ; Retrospective Studies ; Robotic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects/economics/*methods

OBJECTIVETo evaluate the feasibility, safety and short-term clinical outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE).

METHODSClinical data of 17 patients with esophageal cancer who received RAMIE between April 2016 and July 2016 were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTSThe age of the patients ranged from 44 to 83. Six patients received neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy while 11 patients underwent surgery alone. All patients were performed by the robot-assisted thoraco-laparoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy. In-hospital mortality was 0%. None was converted to open transthoracic or laparotomy approach. In the neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy group, 3 patients received pathological complete response while 2 patients were stage II(A and 1 patient was stage II(B. In the surgery alone group, 1 patient was stage I(A, 3 patients were stage II(A, 5 patients were stage II(B, 1 patient was stage III(A and 1 patient was stage III(B. The mean operation time was 195 minutes (range 145 to 305 minutes). The mean blood loss was 60 ml (range 30 to 200 ml). Mean lymph node harvest was 28 nodes. The rate of radical resection was 100%. Median ICU stay was 4.5 days (range 1 to 36 days), and median overall postoperative hospital stay was 15.2 days(range 9 to 45 days). Postoperative complication occurred in 4 (23.5%) patients, including 3 (17.6%) of lung lesion, 2 (11.8%) of hoarseness, 1 (5.9%) of chylothorax, while no anastomotic leakage and arrhythmia was observed.

CONCLUSIONRAMIE for esophageal cancer is feasible and safe with favorable early outcomes.

Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Blood Loss, Surgical ; statistics & numerical data ; Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant ; Esophageal Neoplasms ; surgery ; therapy ; Esophagectomy ; adverse effects ; methods ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; Length of Stay ; Lymph Node Excision ; Lymph Nodes ; surgery ; Middle Aged ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures ; adverse effects ; methods ; Neoadjuvant Therapy ; Operative Time ; Postoperative Complications ; etiology ; Retrospective Studies ; Robotic Surgical Procedures ; adverse effects ; methods ; Thoracic Surgery, Video-Assisted ; adverse effects ; methods ; Treatment Outcome