Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for video-assisted and robotic-assisted lobectomy on surgical outcomes and costs: a retrospective single-center cohort study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To determine the impact of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway implementation on outcomes and cost of robotic- and video-assisted thoracoscopic (RATS and VATS) lobectomy. Retrospective review of 116 consecutive VATS and RATS lobectomies in the pre-ERAS (Oct 2018–Sep 2019) and ERAS (Oct 2019–Sep 2020) period. Multivariate analysis was used to determine the impact of ERAS and operative approach alone, and in combination, on length of hospital stay (LOS) and overall cost. Operative approach was 49.1% VATS, 50.9% RATS, with 44.8% pre-ERAS, and 55.2% ERAS (median age 68, 65.5% female). ERAS patients had shorter LOS (2.22 vs 3.45 days) and decreased total cost ($15,022 vs $20,155) compared with non-ERAS patients, while RATS was associated with decreased LOS (2.16 vs 4.19 days) and decreased total cost ($14,729 vs $20,484) compared with VATS. The combination of ERAS + RATS showed the shortest LOS and the lowest total cost (1.35 days and $13,588, P < 0.001 vs other combinations). On multivariate analysis, ERAS significantly decreased LOS (P = 0.001) and total cost (P = 0.003) compared with pre-ERAS patients; RATS significantly decreased LOS (P < 0.001) and total cost (P = 0.004) compared with VATS approach. ERAS implementation and robotic approach were independently associated with LOS reduction and cost savings in patients undergoing minimally invasive lobectomy. A combination of ERAS and RATS approach synergistically decreases LOS and overall cost.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Scott WJ et al (2010) Video-assisted thoracic surgery versus open lobectomy for lung cancer: a secondary analysis of data from the American college of surgeons oncology group Z0030 randomized clinical trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 139(4):976–981

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kent M et al (2014) Open, video-assisted thoracic surgery, and robotic lobectomy: review of a national database. Ann Thorac Surg 97(1):236–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Adams RD et al (2014) Initial multicenter community robotic lobectomy experience: comparisons to a national database. Ann Thorac Surg 97(6):1893–1898

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Reddy RM et al (2018) Robotic-assisted versus thoracoscopic lobectomy outcomes from high-volume thoracic surgeons. Ann Thorac Surg 106(3):902–908

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Singer E et al (2019) Understanding the financial cost of robotic lobectomy: calculating the value of innovation? Ann Cardiothorac Surg 8(2):194–201

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Jin R 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 

  7. Low DE et al (2019) Guidelines for perioperative care in esophagectomy: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) society recommendations. World J Surg 43(2):299–330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lassen K et al (2012) Guidelines for perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) society recommendations. Clin Nutr 31(6):817–830

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gustafsson UO et al (2019) Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colorectal surgery: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) society recommendations: 2018. World J Surg 43(3):659–695

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kowalsky SJ et al (2019) A combination of robotic approach and ERAS pathway optimizes outcomes and cost for pancreatoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 269(6):1138–1145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nicholson A et al (2014) Systematic review and meta-analysis of enhanced recovery programmes in surgical patients. Br J Surg 101(3):172–188

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Li S et al (2017) Enhanced recovery programs in lung cancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cancer Manag Res 9:657–670

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Batchelor TJP et al (2019) Guidelines for enhanced recovery after lung surgery: recommendations of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) society and the European society of thoracic surgeons (ESTS). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 55(1):91–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ikeda M et al (2002) Angiographic evaluation of the luminal changes in the radial artery graft in coronary artery bypass surgery: a concern over the long-term patency. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 21(5):800–803

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Veronesi G et al (2016) Robot-assisted surgery for lung cancer: state of the art and perspectives. Lung Cancer 101:28–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Liang H et al (2018) Robotic versus video-assisted lobectomy/segmentectomy for lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 268(2):254–259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pardolesi A et al (2012) Robotic anatomic segmentectomy of the lung: technical aspects and initial results. Ann Thorac Surg 94(3):929–934

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kneuertz PJ et al (2018) Robotic lobectomy has the greatest benefit in patients with marginal pulmonary function. J Cardiothorac Surg 13(1):56

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Madani A et al (2015) An enhanced recovery pathway reduces duration of stay and complications after open pulmonary lobectomy. Surgery 158(4):899–908

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Scarci M, Solli P, Bedetti B (2016) Enhanced recovery pathway for thoracic surgery in the UK. J Thorac Dis 8(Suppl 1):S78-83

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Rogers LJ et al (2018) The impact of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol compliance on morbidity from resection for primary lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 155(4):1843–1852

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Varela G et al (2009) Postoperative chest tube management: measuring air leak using an electronic device decreases variability in the clinical practice. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 35(1):28–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brunelli A et al (2010) Evaluation of a new chest tube removal protocol using digital air leak monitoring after lobectomy: a prospective randomised trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 37(1):56–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS (2008) The benefits of continuous and digital air leak assessment after elective pulmonary resection: a prospective study. Ann Thorac Surg 86(2):396–401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Martin LW et al (2018) Implementing a thoracic enhanced recovery program: lessons learned in the first year. Ann Thorac Surg 105(6):1597–1604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Brunelli A et al (2017) Enhanced recovery pathway versus standard care in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 154(6):2084–2090

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zirafa CC et al (2019) The evolution of robotic thoracic surgery. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 8(2):210–217

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Kent MS et al (2021) Pulmonary open, robotic and thoracoscopic lobectomy (PORTaL) study: an analysis of 5,721 cases. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000005115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Meyer M et al (2012) The learning curve of robotic lobectomy. Int J Med Robot 8(4):448–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Soomro NA et al (2020) Systematic review of learning curves in robot-assisted surgery. BJS Open 4(1):27–44

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General and Thoracic Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, 1100 Ninth Avenue, Seattle, WA, 98101, USA

    Shiwei Han, Christina Jander, Madhan Kuppusamy, Joel Sternbach, Donald E. Low & Michal Hubka

  2. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Simo Du

Authors
  1. Shiwei Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simo Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christina Jander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Madhan Kuppusamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joel Sternbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Donald E. Low
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michal Hubka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SH and MH designed the study; SH, MH, JS, and MH collected data from chart review; SH, SD, and MH carried out the statistical analysis; SH, MK, JS, CJ, DL, and MH drafted the manuscript; All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michal Hubka.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 18 KB)

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

Han, S., Du, S., Jander, C. et al. The impact of an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for video-assisted and robotic-assisted lobectomy on surgical outcomes and costs: a retrospective single-center cohort study. J Robotic Surg 17, 1039–1048 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01487-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01487-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation