Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of clinical efficacy of da Vinci robot-assisted lung cancer surgery with two-, three- and four-hole approaches

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Updates in Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Orifice reduction strategies for da Vinci robotic surgery have been a hot topic of research in recent years. We retrospectively analyzed the perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) with two, three, and four-hole approaches in radical lung cancer surgery. Our results revealed that the two-hole group has advantages in terms of operative time, postoperative 3-day drainage, postoperative drainage time, postoperative hospital stay and postoperative day 3 visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores. There were no significant differences between the three groups in terms of intraoperative bleeding, number of lymph nodes dissected, VAS pain scores on postoperative days 1 and 2, and postoperative complications. In addition, the two-hole group was superior to the three-hole and four-hole groups in terms of C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT) and interleukin 10 (IL-10). In summary, the RATS two-hole approach has advantages in operation time, rapid recovery after operation and some postoperative inflammatory indicators, and is worth promoting in hospitals that are skilled in three-hole and four-hole da Vinci robot surgery and have conditions.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets used during the present study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A (2022) (2022) Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 72(1):7–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R et al (2015) Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 136(5):E359–E386

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Yan TD, Black D, Bannon PG, McCaughan BC (2009) Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized trials on safety and efficacy of video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 27(15):2553–2562

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wei S, Chen M, Chen N, Liu L (2017) Feasibility and safety of robot-assisted thoracic surgery for lung lobectomy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 15(1):98

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Jin R, Zheng Y, Yuan Y et al (2022) Robotic-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy: short-term results of a randomized clinical trial (RVlob Trial). Ann Surg 275(2):295–302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Takase Y, Miyajima M, Chiba Y et al (2022) Causes and management of intraoperative complications in robot-assisted anatomical pulmonary resection for lung cancer. J Thorac Dis 14(9):3221–3233

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Han KN, Lee JH, Hong JI, Kim HK (2022) Comparison of two-port and three-port approaches in robotic lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer. World J Surg 46(10):2517–2525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nelson DB, Mehran RJ, Mitchell KG et al (2019) robotic-assisted lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer: a comprehensive institutional experience. Ann Thorac Surg 108(2):370–376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rauma V, Andersson S, Robinson EM et al (2019) Thoracotomy and VATS surgery in local non-small-cell lung cancer: differences in long-term health-related quality of life. Clin Lung Cancer 20(5):378–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Brunswicker A, Taylor M, Grant SW et al (2022) Pneumonectomy for primary lung cancer: contemporary outcomes, risk factors and model validation. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 34(6):1054–1061

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhao X, Qian L, Lin H, Tan Q, Luo Q (2010) Robot-assisted lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer in china: initial experience and techniques. J Thorac Dis 2(1):26–28

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Mazzei M, Abbas AE (2020) Why comprehensive adoption of robotic assisted thoracic surgery is ideal for both simple and complex lung resections. J Thorac Dis 12(2):70–81

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Choe G, Park B (2019) Robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) lobectomy. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 8(2):296–299

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Dong Q, Zhang K, Cao S, Cui J (2017) Fast-track surgery versus conventional perioperative management of lung cancer-associated pneumonectomy: a randomized controlled clinical trial. World J Surg Oncol 15(1):20

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Gansu Province Key R&D Program (2022YF7FA095).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ziqiang Hong and Meiyu Ren have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The First Clinical Medical College of Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, 730000, China

    Ziqiang Hong, Yannan Sheng, Yingjie Lu, Xiangdou Bai, Baiqiang Cui, Xusheng Wu & Tao Cheng

  2. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, 730000, China

    Ziqiang Hong, Xiangdou Bai, Baiqiang Cui, Xusheng Wu, Tao Cheng, Dacheng Jin & Yunjiu Gou

  3. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou, 730000, China

    Meiyu Ren

Authors
  1. Ziqiang Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Meiyu Ren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yannan Sheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yingjie Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiangdou Bai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Baiqiang Cui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Xusheng Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Tao Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Dacheng Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Yunjiu Gou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and design: ZQ Hong, MY Ren, YN Sheng, YJ Gou; administrative support: YJ Gou; provision of study materials or patients: XD Bai, BQ Cui, YJ Lu; collection and assembly of data: XS Wu, T Cheng; data analysis and interpretation: MY Ren, DC Jin; manuscript writing: all authors; final approval of manuscript: all authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yunjiu Gou.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from each patient for being included in the study. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Gansu Provincial People’s Hospital (approval number: 2022–437) and was performed under the ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This study was subject to approval by the Institutional Review Board of Gansu Provincial Hospital. All procedures per formed in this study (involving human participants) were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hong, Z., Ren, M., Sheng, Y. et al. Comparison of clinical efficacy of da Vinci robot-assisted lung cancer surgery with two-, three- and four-hole approaches. Updates Surg 76, 623–630 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-023-01664-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-023-01664-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation