Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Current status of robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for lung cancer

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Surgery Today Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The robotic surgical system was designed to overcome the drawbacks of conventional endoscopic surgery. Since national health insurance in Japan began covering robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) for malignant lung and mediastinal tumors in 2018, the number of RATS procedures being performed domestically has increased rapidly. This review evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of RATS for patients with lung cancers, based on an electronic literature search of PubMed. The main advantages of RATS are its ability to achieve excellent lymph-node removal with low morbidity and mortality, and minimal postoperative pain. Conversely, its disadvantages include a long operation time and the need for specialized instruments. However, the learning curve for RATS is reported to be shorter than that for VATS: some studies recommend that a surgeon needs to perform 18–22 robotic operations to attain sufficient skill. RATS for lung cancer is more expensive than VATS and the cost of training is high. Although the main disadvantage of RATS is that it reduces operator’s tactile senses, the endoscope, which is directly manipulated by the surgeon at the console, using various magnifications, and 3D HD images on the monitor, may compensate for this. Ultimately, RATS offers better maneuverability, accuracy, and stability over VATS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Storz P, Buess GF, Kunert W, Kirschniak A. 3D HD versus 2D HD: surgical task efficiency in standardised phantom tasks. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:1454–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brooks P. Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery for early-stage lung cancer: a review. AORN J. 2015;102:40–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. McLachlan G. From 2D to 3D: the future of surgery? Lancet. 2011;378:1368.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Moore LJ, Wilson MR, Waine E, Masters RS, McGrath JS, Vine SJ. Robotic technology results in faster and more robust surgical skill acquisition than traditional laparoscopy. J Robot Surg. 2015;9:67–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Park BJ, Flores RM, Rusch VW. Robotic assistance for video-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy: technique and initial results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;131:54–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Veronesi G, Galetta D, Maisonneuve P, Melfi F, Schmid RA, Borri A, et al. Four-arm robotic lobectomy for the treatment of early-stage lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;140:19–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Skylizard L, Minnich DJ. Initial consecutive experience of completely portal robotic pulmonary resection with 4 arms. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:740–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gharagozloo F, Margolis M, Tempesta B, Strother E, Najam F. Robot- assisted lobectomy for early-stage lung cancer: report of 100 consecutive cases. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88:380–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dylewski MR, Ohaeto AC, Pereira JF. Pulmonary resection using a total endoscopic robotic video-assisted approach mark. Semin Thoracic Surg. 2011;23:36–42.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Nakamura H, Suda T, Ikeda N, Okada M, Date H, Oda M, et al. Initial results of robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in Japan. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;62:720–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jang HJ, Lee HS, Park SY, Zo JI. Comparison of the early robot-assisted lobectomy experience to video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy for lung cancer: a single-institution case series matching study. Innovations. 2011;6:305–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Louie BE, Farivar AS, Aye RW, Vallières E. Early experience with robotic lung resection results in similar operative outcomes and morbidity when compared with matched video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery cases. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93:1598–604 (discussion 1604–5).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Veronesi G. Robotic surgery for the treatment of early-stage lung cancer. Curr Opin Oncol. 2013;25:107–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Louie BE, Wilson JL, Kim S, Cerfolio RJ, Park BJ, Farivar AS, et al. Comparison of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery and robotic approaches for clinical stage I and stage II non-small cell lung cancer using the society of thoracic surgeons database. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102:917–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Kent M, Wang T, Whyte R, Curran T, Flores R, Gangadharan S. Open, video-assisted thoracic surgery, and robotic lobectomy: review of a national database. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97:236–42. (discussion 242-4).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nasir BS, Bryant AS, Minnich DJ, Wei B, Cerfolio RJ. Performing robotic lobectomy and segmentectomy: Cost, profitability, and outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98:203–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nakamura H. Systematic review of published studies on safety and efficacy of thoracoscopic and robot-assisted lobectomy for lung cancer. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;20:93–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Veronesi G. Robotic lobectomy and segmentectomy for lung cancer: results and operating technique. J Thorac Dis. 2015;7:122–30.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Giulianotti PC, Buchs NC, Caravaglios G, Bianco FM. Robot-assisted lung resection: outcomes and technical details. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2010;11:388–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mungo B, Hooker CM, Ho JSY, Yang SC, Battafarano RJ, Brock MV, et al. Robotic versus thoracoscopic resection for lung cancer: early results of a new robotic program. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016;26:243–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Novellis P, Bottoni E, Voulaz E, Cariboni U, Testori A, Bertolaccini L, et al. Robotic surgery, video-assisted thoracic surgery, and open surgery for early stage lung cancer: comparison of costs and outcomes at a single institute. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10:790–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Liang H, Liang W, Zhao L, Chen D, Zhang J, Zhang Y. et al. Robotic versus video-assisted lobectomy/segmentectomy for lung cancer. Ann Surg. 2018;268:254–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Veronesi G, Novellis P, Difrancesco O, Dylewski M. Robotic assisted lobectomy for locally advanced lung cancer. J Vis Surg. 2017;3:78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Cerfolio RJ. Total port approach for robotic lobectomy. Thorac Surg Clin. 2014;24:151–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Melfi FM, Mussi A. Robotically assisted lobectomy: learning curve and complications. Thorac Surg Clin. 2008;18:289–95. vi-vii.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Minnich DJ. Starting a robotic program in general thoracic surgery: why, how, and lessons learned. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91:1729–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS. How to teach robotic pulmonary resection. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;25:76–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Meyer M, Gharagozloo F, Tempesta B, Margolis M, Strother E, Christenson D. The learning curve of robotic lobectomy. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg. 2012;8:448–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hernandez JD, Bann S, Munz K, Moorthy K, Datta V, Martin S, et al. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the learning curve of a simulated task on the da Vinci system. Surg Endosc. 2004;18:372–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hernandez JM, Humphries LA, Keeling WB, Golkar F, Dimou F, Garrett J, et al. Robotic lobectomy: flattening the learning curve. J Robot Surg. 2012;6:41–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Veronesi G, Agoglia BG, Melfi F, Maisonneuve P, Raffaella Bertolotti R, Bianchi PP, et al. Experience with robotic lobectomy for lung cancer. Innovations. 2011;6:355–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Arnold BN, Thomas DC, Bhatnager V, Blasberg JD, Wang Z, Boffa DJ, et al. Defining the learning curve in robot-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy. Surgery. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2018.06.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wei B, Eldaif SM, Cerfolio RJ. Robotic lung resection for non-small cell lung cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2016;25:515–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Park BJ, Flores RM. Cost comparison of robotic, video-assisted thoracic surgery and thoracotomy approaches to pulmonary lobectomy. Thorac Surg Clin. 2008;18:297–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Swanson SJ, Miller DL, McKenna RJ, Howington J, Marshall MB, Yoo AC, et al. Comparing robot-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy with conventional video-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy and wedge resection: Results from a multihospital database (Premier). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147:929–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Paul S, Jalbert J, Isaacs AJ, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robotic- assisted vs thoracoscopic lobectomy. Chest. 2014;146:1505–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Deen SA, Wilson JL, Wilshire CL, Vallières E, Farivar AS, Aye RW, et al. Defining the cost of care for lobectomy and segmentectomy: a comparison of open, video-assisted thoracoscopic, and robotic approaches. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97:1000–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Dylewski MR, Lazzaro RS. Robotics—the answer to the Achilles’ heel of VATS pulmonary resection. Chin J Cancer Res. 2012;24:259–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Kajiwara N, Kato Y, Hagiwara M, Kakihana M, Ohira T, Kawate N, et al. Robot-assisted thoracic surgery as required for financial viability under the 2016 revised reimbursement paradigm of the Japanese National Health Insurance System. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;24:73–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. McKenna RJ. Lobectomy by video assisted thoracic surgery with mediastinal node sampling for lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1994;107:879–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gharagozloo F, Margolis M, Tempesta B. Robot-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy for early-stage lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85:1880–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Suda T. Transition from video-assisted thoracic surgery to robotic pulmonary surgery. J Vis Surg. 2017;3:55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Huang J, Li J, Li H, Lin H, Lu P, Luo Q. Continuous 389 cases of Da Vinci robot-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy in treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: experience in Shanghai Chest Hospital. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10:3776–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Veronesi G, Park B, Cerfolio R, Dylewski M, Toker A, Fontaine JP, et al. Robotic resection of Stage III lung cancer: an international retrospective study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018;54:912–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Cao C, Manganas C, Ang SC, Yan TD. A systematic review and meta-analysis on pulmonary resections by robotic video-assisted thoracic surgery. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;1:3–10.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Demmy TL, Yendamuri S, D’Amico TA, Burfeind WR. Oncologic equivalence of minimally invasive lobectomy: the scientific and practical arguments. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;106:609–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Thoracic Surgery, School of Medicine, Tokyo Women’s Medical University, 8-1 Kawada-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8666, Japan

    Masato Kanzaki

Authors
  1. Masato Kanzaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masato Kanzaki.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

I have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kanzaki, M. Current status of robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for lung cancer. Surg Today 49, 795–802 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-019-01793-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-019-01793-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation