Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Intraoperative complications and troubles in robot-assisted anatomical pulmonary resection

  • Original Article
  • Published:
General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Regarding intraoperative complications and troubles during robot-assisted thoracic surgery, few data are available especially in Japan. This study was aimed to elucidate intraoperative complications and troubles in robotic anatomical lung resection, and to present managements and outcomes of those.

Methods

This was a retrospective singe-institutional study. The first 192 consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted anatomical lung resection between January 2017 and August 2019 were evaluated. We examined the frequency, management and outcomes of intraoperative complications and troubles.

Results

Of the 192 eligible patients who underwent robotic anatomical lung resection, lobectomy was performed for 156 (81.2%), and segmentectomy for 36 (18.8%). Three (1.5%) required conversion to open thoracotomy. Of these, bleeding from the pulmonary artery was the cause in two patients (1.0%) and inflammatory adhesion of hilar lymph nodes in 1 (0.5%). Other intraoperative complications and troubles included bronchial injuries in 3 patients (1.5%), lung injury by assistant in one patient (0.5%) and horizontal movement limitation of da Vinci arm in one patient (0.5%). Regarding bronchial injuries, two of three were stump injuries related to stapling, the remaining was to dissection of the bronchial tissues. All bronchial repairs were completed without conversion, and postoperative complications related to bronchial injury were not observed. The 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were both 0%.

Conclusions

The frequency of intraoperative complications and troubles in robot-assisted thoracic surgery was low in our first series. All conversions were related to bleeding and impending bleeding, and no conversion was required for bronchial injury.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

RATS:

Robot-assisted thoracic surgery

MIS:

Minimally invasive surgery

VATS:

Video-assisted thoracic surgery

References

  1. 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  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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;97:236–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. van der Ploeg APT, Ayez N, Akkersdijk GP, van Rossem CC, de Rooji PD. Postoperative pain after lobectomy: robot-assisted, video-assisted and open thoracic surgery. J Robot Surg. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00953-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Infante MV, Benato C, Silva R, Rocco G, Bertani A, Bertolaccini L, et al. What counts more: the patient, the surgical technique, or the hospital? A multivariable analysis of factors affecting perioperative complications of pulmonary lobectomy by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery from a large nationwide registry. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;00:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Emmert A, Straube C, Buentzel J, Roever C. Robotic versus thoracoscopic lung resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine. 2017;96:35e7633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cao C, Cerfolio RJ, Louie BE, Melfi F, Veronesi G, Razzak R, et al. Incidence, management, and outcomes of intraoperative catastrophes during robotic pulmonary resection. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;108:1498–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ramadan OI, Wei B, Cerfolio RJ. Robotic surgery for lung resections-total port approach: advantages and disadvantages. J Vis Surg. 2017;3:22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Suzuki K, Saji H, Aokage K, Watanabe S, Okada M, et al. Comparison of pulmonary segmentectomy and lobectomy: safety results of a randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019;158:895–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Decaluwe H, Peterson RH, Hansen H, Piwkowski C, Augustin F, Brunelli A, et al. Major intraoperative complications during video-assisted thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection: an intension-to-treat analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;48:588–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cerfolio RJ, Bess KM, Wei B, Minnich DJ. Incidence, results, and our current intraoperative techniques to control major vascular injuries during minimally invasive robotic thoracic surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102:394–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Louie BE. Catastrophes and complicated intraoperative events during robotic lung resection. J Vis Surg. 2017;3:52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Thoracic Surgery, Juntendo University School of Medicine, 1-3, Hongo 3-chome, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8431, Japan

    Hiroyasu Ueno, Yukio Watanabe, Aritoshi Hattori, Kota Imashimizu, Kazuya Takamochi, Shiaki Oh & Kenji Suzuki

  2. Department of General Thoracic Surgery, Juntendo Shizuoka Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan

    Shunki Hirayama

Authors
  1. Hiroyasu Ueno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yukio Watanabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shunki Hirayama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aritoshi Hattori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kota Imashimizu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kazuya Takamochi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Shiaki Oh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kenji Suzuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenji Suzuki.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We have no conflict of interest.

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

Ueno, H., Watanabe, Y., Hirayama, S. et al. Intraoperative complications and troubles in robot-assisted anatomical pulmonary resection. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 69, 51–58 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11748-020-01419-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11748-020-01419-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation