Sarkaria, Inderpal S.

Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze overall survival (OS) of robotic-assisted lobectomy (RL), video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy (VATS), and open lobectomy (OL) performed by experienced thoracic surgeons across multiple institutions. Summary Background Data: Surgeons have increasingly adopted RL for resection of early-stage lung cancer. Comparative survival data following these approaches is largely from single-institution case series or administrative data sets. Methods: Retrospective data was collected from 21 institutions from 2013 to 2019. Consecutive cases performed for clinical stage IA–IIIA lung cancer were included. Induction therapy patients were excluded. The propensity-score method of inverse-probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate association among OS and relevant risk factors. Results: A total of 2789 RL, 2661 VATS, and 1196 OL cases were included. The unadjusted 5-year OS rate was highest for OL (84%) followed by RL (81%) and VATS (74%); P=0.008. Similar trends were also observed after inverse-probability of treatment weighting adjustment (RL 81%; VATS 73%, OL 85%, P=0.001). Multivariable Cox regression analyses revealed that OL and RL were associated with significantly higher OS compared with VATS (OL vs. VATS: hazard ratio=0.64, P<0.001 and RL vs. VATS: hazard ratio=0.79; P=0.007). Conclusions: Our finding from this large multicenter study suggests that patients undergoing RL and OL have statistically similar OS, while the VATS group was associated with shorter OS. Further studies with longer follow-up are necessary to help evaluate these observations.

Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes of open lobectomy (OL), VATS, and robotic-assisted lobectomy (RL). Summary Background Data: Robotic-assisted lobectomy has seen increasing adoption for treatment of early-stage lung cancer. Comparative data regarding these approaches is largely from single-institution case series or administrative datasets. Methods: Retrospective data was collected from 21 institutions from 2013 to 2019. All consecutive cases performed for clinical stage IA-IIIA lung cancer were included. Neoadjuvant cases were excluded. Propensity-score matching (1:1) was based on age, sex, race, smoking-status, FEV1%, Zubrod score, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor size, and clinical T and N stage. Results: A total of 2391 RL, 2174 VATS, and 1156 OL cases were included. After propensity-score matching there were 885 pairs of RL vs OL, 1,711 pairs of RL vs VATS, and 952 pairs of VATS vs OL. Operative time for RL was shorter than VATS (P < 0.0001) and OL (P = 0.0004). Compared to OL, RL and VATS had less overall postoperative complications, shorter hospital stay (LOS), and lower transfusion rates (all P<0.02). Compared to VATS, RL had lower conversion rate (P<0.0001), shorter hospital stay (P<0.0001) and a lower postoperative transfusion rate (P =0.01). RL and VATS cohorts had comparable postoperative complication rates. In-hospital mortality was comparable between all groups. Conclusions: RL and VATS approaches were associated with favorable perioperative outcomes compared to OL. Robotic-assisted lobectomy was also associated with a reduced length of stay and decreased conversion rate when compared to VATS.

Abstract OBJECTIVES Complete thymectomy is a key component of the optimal treatment for myasthenia gravis. Unilateral, minimally invasive approaches are increasingly utilized with debate about the optimal laterality approach. A right-sided approach has a wider field of view, while a left-sided approach accesses potentially more thymic tissue. We aimed to assess the impact of laterality on perioperative and medium-term outcomes, and to identify predictors of a ‘good outcome’ using standard definitions. METHODS We performed a multicentre review of 123 patients who underwent a minimally invasive thymectomy for myasthenia gravis between January 2000 and August 2015, with at least 1-year follow-up. The Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America standards were followed. A ‘good outcome’ was defined by complete stable remission/pharmacological remission/minimal manifestations 0, and a ‘poor outcome’ by minimal manifestations 1–3. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess factors associated with a ‘good outcome’. RESULTS Ninety-two percent of thymectomies (113/123) were robotic-assisted. The left-sided approach had a shorter median operating time than a right-sided: 143 (interquartile range, IQR 110–196) vs 184 (IQR 133–228) min, P = 0.012. At a median of 44 (IQR 27–75) months, the left-sided approach achieved a ‘good outcome’ (46%, 31/68) more frequently than the right-sided (22%, 12/55); P = 0.011. Multivariable analysis identified a left-sided approach and Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America class I/II to be associated with a ‘good outcome’. CONCLUSIONS A left-sided thymectomy may be preferred over a right-sided approach in patients with myasthenia gravis given the shorter operating times and potential for superior medium-term symptomatic outcomes. A lower severity class is also associated with a ‘good outcome’.