Skip to main content

Postoperative pain after lobectomy: robot-assisted, video-assisted and open thoracic surgery

Journal of Robotic Surgery volume 14, pages 131–136 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Surgical resection is the optimal procedure for early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Open thoracotomy, video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) and robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) are different surgical modalities with possible different outcomes. The aim of this study was to analyze differences in outcome with a focus on postoperative pain. Patients undergoing lobectomy at the Maasstad Hospital in 2015 and 2016 were included. Postoperative pain was scored according to the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Additionally, duration of chest tube drainage and thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA), hospital length of stay and type of surgery were assessed. Lobectomy was performed in 57 patients. There was no significant difference in type of surgery, age, gender, right-sided surgery, postoperative NRS scores, duration of chest tube drainage and epidural anesthesia, and hospital length of stay (p > 0.05). Operative time for RATS was significantly longer (p = 0.002). Postoperative pain scores and other outcomes did not differ between the three different modalities in surgery for NSCLC. In the future, more minimally invasive surgery will be used in pulmonary surgery with thoracotomy as a safe alternative in selected cases. Future studies have to demonstrate if RATS will overcome the differences concerning cost-effectiveness over VATS.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Walker WS, Carnochan FM, Pugh GC (1993) Thoracoscopic pulmonary lobectomy. Early operative experience and preliminary clinical results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 106:1111-1117

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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. 27:2553–2562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 15:98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wei B, D'Amico TA (2014) Thoracoscopic versus robotic approaches: advantages and disadvantages. Thorac Surg Clin 24:177–88 vi

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Agzarian J, Fahim C, Shargall Y, Yasufuku K, Waddell TK, Hanna WC (2016) The use of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery for lung resection: a comprehensive systematic review. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 28:182–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cao C, Manganas C, Ang SC, Yan TD (2012) A meta-analysis of unmatched and matched patients comparing video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy and conventional open lobectomy. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 1:16–23

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Diederich S (2010) Lung cancer staging update: the revised TNM classification. Cancer Imaging 10(A):S134–S135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Leandro JD, Rodrigues OR, Slaets AF, Schmidt AF Jr, Yaekashi ML (2014) Comparison between two thoracotomy closure techniques: postoperative pain and pulmonary function. J Bras Pneumol. 40:389–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Emmert A, Straube C, Buentzel J, Roever C (2017) Robotic versus thoracoscopic lung resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 96:e7633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Williamson A, Hoggart B (2005) Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs 14:798–804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Myles PS, Myles DB, Galagher W, Boyd D, Chew C, MacDonald N et al (2017) Measuring acute postoperative pain using the visual analog scale: the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state. Br J Anaesth. 118:424–429

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Obuchi T, Yoshida Y, Moroga T, Miyahara N, Iwasaki A (2017) Postoperative pain in thoracic surgery: re-evaluating the benefits of VATS when coupled with epidural analgesia. J Thorac Dis 9:4347–4352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS (2011) Optimal care of patients with non-small cell lung cancer reduces perioperative morbidity. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 141:22–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bendixen M, Jorgensen OD, Kronborg C, Andersen C, Licht PB (2016) Postoperative pain and quality of life after lobectomy via video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery or anterolateral thoracotomy for early stage lung cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 17:836–844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Akter F, Routledge T, Toufektzian L, Attia R (2015) In minor and major thoracic procedures is uniport superior to multiport video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 20:550–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Muraoka M, Oka T, Akamine S, Tagawa T, Nakamura A, Hashizume S et al (2006) Video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy reduces the morbidity after surgery for stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Jpn J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 54:49–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Yim AP, Wan S, Lee TW, Arifi AA (2000) VATS lobectomy reduces cytokine responses compared with conventional surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 70:243–247

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jang HJ, Lee HS, Park SY, Zo JI (2011) 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 (Phila) 6:305–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee BE, Korst RJ, Kletsman E, Rutledge JR (2014) Transitioning from video-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy to robotics for lung cancer: are there outcomes advantages? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 147:724–729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Louie BE, Wilson JL, Kim S, Cerfolio RJ, Park BJ, Farivar AS et al (2016) 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 102:917–924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Farivar AS, Cerfolio RJ, Vallieres E, Knight AW, Bryant A, Lingala V et al (2014) Comparing robotic lung resection with thoracotomy and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery cases entered into the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. Innovations (Phila) 9:10–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Yang CF, Sun Z, Speicher PJ, Saud SM, Gulack BC, Hartwig MG et al (2016) Use and outcomes of minimally invasive lobectomy for stage I non-small cell lung cancer in the National Cancer Data Base. Ann Thorac Surg. 101:1037–1042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Veronesi G, Novellis P, Voulaz E, Alloisio M (2016) Robot-assisted surgery for lung cancer: state of the art and perspectives. Lung Cancer 101:28–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Augustin F, Bodner J, Maier H, Schwinghammer C, Pichler B, Lucciarini P, et al. (2013) Robotic-assisted minimally invasive vs. thoracoscopic lung lobectomy: comparison of perioperative results in a learning curve setting. Langenbecks Arch Surg 398:895–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Maasstad Hospital, Maasstadweg 21, 3079 DZ, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Augustinus P. T. van der Ploeg, George P. Akkersdijk, Charles C. van Rossem & Peter D. de Rooij

  2. Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Ninos Ayez

Authors
  1. Augustinus P. T. van der Ploeg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ninos Ayez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. George P. Akkersdijk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Charles C. van Rossem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter D. de Rooij
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Augustinus P. T. van der Ploeg.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors Dr. van der Ploeg, Dr. Ayez, Drs. Akkersdijk, Dr. van Rossem and Drs. de Rooij declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van der Ploeg, A.P.T., Ayez, N., Akkersdijk, G.P. et al. Postoperative pain after lobectomy: robot-assisted, video-assisted and open thoracic surgery. J Robotic Surg 14, 131–136 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00953-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00953-y

Keywords

  • Pain
  • Lung
  • VATS
  • Robotic
  • Surgery