memo - Magazine of European Medical Oncology

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 103–105 | Cite as

Robotic surgery in thoracic cancer

Short review
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Summary

PURPOSE: Recently introduced robotic surgical systems were developed to overcome the limitations of conventional minimally invasive surgery. We analyzed the impact of the da Vinci™ surgical robot on general (non-cardiac) thoracic oncologic surgery, especially for pulmonary lobectomy in NSCLC patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed by accessing the MEDLINE database for entries on robotic surgery for thoracic cancer. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The da Vinci™ robotic system is currently the only commercially available robotic surgical system. There is no role for the robot in pulmonary metastasectomy. Several retrospective analyses and case series prove safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted lobectomy for early-stage NSCLC. Strictly spoken, however, this is a hybrid procedure of robotic and conventional thoracoscopic surgical techniques. For no oncologic long-term follow-up data are available by now, an oncologic valuation of the robotic approach is not appropriate yet.

Keywords

Robotic Lung cancer Mediastinum VATS Da Vinci 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Thomas P, Doddoli C, Yena S, et al. VATS is an adequate oncological operation for stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 21: 1094–1099, 2002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Roviaro GC, Varoli F, Vergani C, et al. State of the art in thoracospic surgery: a personal experience of 2000 videothoracoscopic procedures and an overview of the literature. Surg Endosc, 16: 881–892, 2002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Nagahiro I, Andou A, Aoe M, et al. Pulmonary function, postoperative pain, and serum cytokine level after lobectomy: a comparison of VATS and conventional procedure. Ann Thorac Surg, 72: 362–365, 2001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Forster R, Storck M, Schafer JR, et al. Thoracoscopy versus thoracotomy: a prospective comparison of trauma and quality of life. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 387: 32–36, 2002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dieter RA Jr, Kuzycz GB. Complications and contraindications of thoracoscopy. Int Surg, 82: 232–239, 1997PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cadiere GB, Himpens J, Vertruyen M, et al. Nissen fundoplication done by remotely controlled robotic technique. Ann Chir, 53: 137–141, 1999PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Shennib H, Bastawisy A, McLoughlin J, et al. Robotic computer-assisted telemanipulation enhances coronary artery bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 117: 310–313, 1999CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Schmid T. Robotic surgery. Eur Surg, 3: 155–157, 2002Google Scholar
  9. Carballo M, Maish MS, Jaroszewski DE. Video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) as a safe alternative for the resection of pulmonary metastases: a retrospective cohort study. J Cardiothorac Surg, 24: 13, 2002Google Scholar
  10. Erhunmwunsee L, D'Amico TA. Surgical management of pulmonary metastases. Ann Thorac Surg, 88: 2052–2060, 2009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Augustin F, Bodner J, Wykypiel H, et al. Initial experience with robotic lung lobectomy: report of two different approaches. Surg Endosc, 2010. in pressGoogle Scholar
  12. Ninan M, Dylewski MR. Total port-access robot-assisted pulmonary lobectomy without utility thoracotomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2010. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  13. Veronesi G, Galetta D, Dipeng PM, et al. Four-arm robotic lobectomy for the treatment of early-stage lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2009. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  14. Gharagozloo F, Margolis M, Tempesta B, et al. Robot-assisted lobectomy for early-stage lung cancer: report of 100 consecutive cases. Ann Thorac Surg, 88: 380–384, 2009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Park BJ, Flores RM, Rusch VW. Robotic assistance for video-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy: technique and initial results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 131: 54–59, 2006CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Morgan JA, Ginsburg ME, Sonett JR, et al. Thoracoscopic lobectomy using robotic technology. Heart Surg Forum, 6: E167–E169, 2003PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ashton RC Jr, Connery CP, Swistel DG, et al. Robot-assisted lobectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 126: 292–293, 2003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Dolezel J, Vlcek P. Robot-assisted pulmonary lobectomy. Bratisl Lek Listy, 109: 251–253, 2008PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Braumann C, Jacobi CA, Menenakos C, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic and thoracoscopic surgery with the da Vinci system: a 4-year experience in a single institution. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 18: 260–266, 2008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Bodner J, Wykypiel H, Wetscher G, et al. First experiences with the da Vinci operating robot in thoracic surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 25: 844–851, 2004CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Garcia-Ruiz A, Smedira NG, Loop FD, Hahn JF, Miller JH, Steiner CP, Gagner M. Robotic surgical instruments for dexterity enhancement in thoracoscopic coronary artery bypass graft. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 7: 277–283, 1997CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Bodner
    • 1
  • T. Schmid
    • 1
  • H. Wykypiel
    • 1
  • F. Augustin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Visceral, Transplant and Thoracic SurgeryMedical University InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations