Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Use of Robotics in Surgical Treatment of Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

  • Lung Cancer (HA Wakelee and TA Leal, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Opinion statement

Robotic-assisted videothoracoscopic surgery (R-VATS) has become increasingly popular and widely used since its introduction and is nowadays considered a standard treatment approach in many centres for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. R-VATS was initially developed to overcome the drawbacks of VATS by offering surgeons more flexibility and three-dimensional optics during thoracoscopic surgery. The effectiveness of R-VATS lobectomy regarding oncological outcomes, morbidity, mortality, and postoperative quality of life (QoL) has been shown in an increasing number of studies. More recently, these results have also been corroborated for sublobar resections, more specifically for segmentectomy. However, no well-powered, multicentre randomized trials have been performed to demonstrate the superiority of R-VATS compared with open surgery or conventional types of VATS (total VATS, uniportal VATS, etc.). The majority of the evidence currently available is based on non-randomized studies, and many studies report conflicting results when comparing R-VATS and conventional VATS. Moreover, there is a lack of data regarding the cost and the cost-efficiency of robotic surgery compared with VATS and open surgery. Current evidence suggests that R-VATS costs are higher than VATS and that a deficit can only be prevented when up to 150–300 thoracic surgery procedures are performed annually. Finally, robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery showed better ergonomics and reduced musculoskeletal disorders compared with non-robotic laparoscopic surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Wong MCS, Lao XQ, Ho KF, Goggins WB, Tse SLA. Incidence and mortality of lung cancer: global trends and association with socioeconomic status. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):14300. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14513-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. de Groot PM, Wu CC, Carter BW, Munden RF. The epidemiology of lung cancer. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2018;7(3):220–33. https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr.2018.05.06.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Malvezzi M, Carioli G, Bertuccio P, Boffetta P, Levi F, La Vecchia C, et al. European cancer mortality predictions for the year 2017, with focus on lung cancer. Annals of oncology: official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology. 2017;28(5):1117–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx033.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Torre LA, Siegel RL, Jemal A. Lung cancer statistics. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2016;893:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24223-1_1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lung Cancer Incidence and Mortality with Extended Follow-up in the National Lung Screening Trial. Journal of thoracic oncology: official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. 2019;14(10):1732–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2019.05.044Follow-up study on large nationwide lung cancer screening trial from the United States.

  6. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, Fagerstrom RM, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395–409. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1102873.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. •• de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA, Scholten ET, Nackaerts K, Heuvelmans MA, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. New England journal of medicine. 2020;382(6):503–13. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1911793Large Dutch/Belgian randomized controlled troam regarding lung cancer screening with low-dose CT-scans.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ginsberg RJ, Rubinstein LV. Randomized trial of lobectomy versus limited resection for T1 N0 non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer study group. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;60(3):615–22 discussion 22-3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lang-Lazdunski L. Surgery for nonsmall cell lung cancer. Eur Respir Rev. 2013;22(129):382–404. https://doi.org/10.1183/09059180.00003913.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ujiie H, Gregor A, Yasufuku K. Minimally invasive surgical approaches for lung cancer. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2019;13(6):571–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/17476348.2019.1610399.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ikeda N. Updates on minimally invasive surgery in non-small cell lung Cancer. Curr Treat Options in Oncol. 2019;20(2):16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-019-0614-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Abbas AE. Surgical management of lung cancer: history, evolution, and modern advances. Curr Oncol Rep. 2018;20(12):98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-018-0741-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Velez-Cubian FO, Ng EP, Fontaine JP, Toloza EM. Robotic-assisted videothoracoscopic surgery of the lung. Cancer Control. 2015;22(3):314–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/107327481502200309.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Singer E, Kneuertz PJ, D'Souza DM, Moffatt-Bruce SD, Merritt RE. Understanding the financial cost of robotic lobectomy: calculating the value of innovation? Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;8(2):194–201. https://doi.org/10.21037/acs.2018.05.18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Kanzaki M. Current status of robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for lung cancer. Surg Today. 2019;49(10):795–802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-019-01793-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jang HJ, Lee HS, Park SY, Zo JI. 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). 2011;6(5):305–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/IMI.0b013e3182378b4c.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Louie BE, Farivar AS, Aye RW, Vallieres E. Early experience with robotic lung resection results in similar operative outcomes and morbidity when compared with matched video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery cases. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93(5):1598–604; discussion 604-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.01.067.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mungo B, Hooker CM, Ho JS, Yang SC, Battafarano RJ, Brock MV, et al. Robotic versus thoracoscopic resection for lung cancer: early results of a new robotic program. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016;26(4):243–8. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2016.0049.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Novellis P, Bottoni E, Voulaz E, Cariboni U, Testori A, Bertolaccini L, et al. Robotic surgery, video-assisted thoracic surgery, and open surgery for early stage lung cancer: comparison of costs and outcomes at a single institute. Journal of thoracic disease. 2018;10(2):790–8. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2018.01.123.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Paul S, Jalbert J, Isaacs AJ, Altorki NK, Isom OW, Sedrakyan A. Comparative effectiveness of robotic-assisted vs thoracoscopic lobectomy. Chest. 2014;146(6):1505–12. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.13-3032.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Guo F, Ma D, Li S. Compare the prognosis of Da Vinci robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) with video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) for non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(39):e17089. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000017089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. • Liang H, Liang W, Zhao L, Chen D, Zhang J, Zhang Y, et al. Robotic versus video-assisted lobectomy/segmentectomy for lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2018;268(2):254–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000002346Recent extensive meta-analysis comparing robot-assisted and video-assisted lobectomy/segmentectomy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Emmert A, Straube C, Buentzel J, Roever C. Robotic versus thoracoscopic lung resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(35):e7633. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000007633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Oh DS, Reddy RM, Gorrepati ML, Mehendale S, Reed MF. Robotic-assisted, video-assisted thoracoscopic and open lobectomy: propensity-matched analysis of recent premier data. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;104(5):1733–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.06.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Louie BE, Wilson JL, Kim S, Cerfolio RJ, Park BJ, Farivar AS, et al. 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. 2016;102(3):917–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.03.032.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Wilson JL, Louie BE, Cerfolio RJ, Park BJ, Vallieres E, Aye RW, et al. The prevalence of nodal upstaging during robotic lung resection in early stage non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97(6):1901–6; discussion 6-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.01.064.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yang S, Guo W, Chen X, Wu H, Li H. Early outcomes of robotic versus uniportal video-assisted thoracic surgery for lung cancer: a propensity score-matched study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018;53(2):348–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezx310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hennon MW, DeGraaff LH, Groman A, Demmy TL, Yendamuri S. The association of nodal upstaging with surgical approach and its impact on long-term survival after resection of non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;57:888–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezz320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Li W, Yang X-N, Liao R-Q, Nie Q, Dong S, Zhai H-R, et al. Intraoperative frozen sections of the regional lymph nodes contribute to surgical decision-making in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Journal of thoracic disease. 2016;8(8):1974–80. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2016.06.49.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Veronesi G. Robotic lobectomy and segmentectomy for lung cancer: results and operating technique. Journal of thoracic disease. 2015;7(Suppl 2):S122–30. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2015.04.34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Detterbeck FC. Lobectomy versus limited resection in T1N0 lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;96(2):742–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.03.074.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Subramanian M, McMurry T, Meyers BF, Puri V, Kozower BD. Long-term results for clinical stage IA lung cancer: comparing lobectomy and sublobar resection. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;106(2):375–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.02.049.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Khullar OV, Liu Y, Gillespie T, Higgins KA, Ramalingam S, Lipscomb J, et al. Survival after sublobar resection versus lobectomy for clinical stage IA lung cancer: an analysis from the National Cancer Data Base. Journal of thoracic oncology: official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. 2015;10(11):1625–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/jto.0000000000000664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Harada H, Okada M, Sakamoto T, Matsuoka H, Tsubota N. Functional advantage after radical segmentectomy versus lobectomy for lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;80(6):2041–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2005.06.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Cao C, Gupta S, Chandrakumar D, Tian DH, Black D, Yan TD. Meta-analysis of intentional sublobar resections versus lobectomy for early stage non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;3(2):134–41. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2225-319X.2014.03.08.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Dylewski MR, Ohaeto AC, Pereira JF. Pulmonary resection using a total endoscopic robotic video-assisted approach. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;23(1):36–42. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semtcvs.2011.01.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. • Nguyen D, Gharagozloo F, Tempesta B, Meyer M, Gruessner A. Long-term results of robotic anatomical segmentectomy for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;55(3):427–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezy332One of the first large retrospective studies on the long-term results and surgical outcomes of robotic anatomical segmentectomy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Xie B, Sun X, Qin Y, Liu A, Miao S, Jiao W. Short-term outcomes of typical versus atypical lung segmentectomy by minimally invasive surgeries. Thoracic Cancer. 2019;10(9):1812–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-7714.13152.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Nakamura K, Saji H, Nakajima R, Okada M, Asamura H, Shibata T, et al. A phase III randomized trial of lobectomy versus limited resection for small-sized peripheral non-small cell lung cancer (JCOG0802/WJOG4607L). Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2010;40(3):271–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyp156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kohman LJ, Gu L, Altorki N, Scalzetti E, Veit LJ, Wallen JM, et al. Biopsy first: lessons learned from cancer and leukemia group B (CALGB) 140503. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;153(6):1592–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.12.045.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Singer E, Kneuertz PJ, D’Souza DM, Moffatt-Bruce SD, Merritt RE. Understanding the financial cost of robotic lobectomy: calculating the value of innovation? Annals of cardiothoracic surgery. 2019;8(2):194–201. https://doi.org/10.21037/acs.2018.05.18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Rajaram R, Mohanty S, Bentrem DJ, Pavey ES, Odell DD, Bharat A, et al. Nationwide assessment of robotic lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;103(4):1092–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.09.108.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Swanson SJ, Miller DL, McKenna RJ Jr, Howington J, Marshall MB, Yoo AC, et al. Comparing robot-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy with conventional video-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy and wedge resection: results from a multihospital database (Premier). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147(3):929–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.09.046.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Park BJ, Flores RM. Cost comparison of robotic, video-assisted thoracic surgery and thoracotomy approaches to pulmonary lobectomy. Thorac Surg Clin. 2008;18(3):297–300, vii. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thorsurg.2008.05.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Deen SA, Wilson JL, Wilshire CL, Vallieres E, Farivar AS, Aye RW, et al. Defining the cost of care for lobectomy and segmentectomy: a comparison of open, video-assisted thoracoscopic, and robotic approaches. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97(3):1000–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.11.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Epstein S, Sparer EH, Tran BN, Ruan QZ, Dennerlein JT, Singhal D, et al. Prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among surgeons and interventionalists: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA surgery. 2018;153(2):e174947. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.4947.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Catanzarite T, Tan-Kim J, Whitcomb EL, Menefee S. Ergonomics in surgery: a review. Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery. 2018;24(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/spv.0000000000000456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Grant KMK, Vo T, Tiong LU. The painful truth: work-related musculoskeletal disorders in Australian surgeons. Occupational medicine (Oxford, England). 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqz155.

  49. van der Schatte Olivier RH, Van't Hullenaar CDP, Ruurda JP, Broeders IAMJ. Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(6):1365–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0184-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Mendes V, Bruyere F, Escoffre JM, Binet A, Lardy H, Marret H, et al. Experience implication in subjective surgical ergonomics comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgeries. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(1):115–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00933-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Sanchez A, Rodriguez O, Jara G, Sanchez R, Vegas L, Rosciano J, et al. Robot-assisted surgery and incisional hernia: a comparative study of ergonomics in a training model. J Robot Surg. 2018;12(3):523–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0777-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Hansen HJ, Petersen RH, Christensen M. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy using a standardized anterior approach. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(4):1263–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1355-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital of Antwerp, Antwerp University, Level 2, Route 146, Wilrijkstraat 10, B-2650, Edegem (Antwerp), Belgium

    Lawek Berzenji MD, Krishan Yogeswaran MD, Paul Van Schil MD, PhD, Patrick Lauwers MD & Jeroen M. H. Hendriks MD, PhD, FEBTS

Authors
  1. Lawek Berzenji MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Krishan Yogeswaran MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul Van Schil MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patrick Lauwers MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jeroen M. H. Hendriks MD, PhD, FEBTS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeroen M. H. Hendriks MD, PhD, FEBTS.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Lawek Berzenji declares that he/she has no conflict of interest.

Krishan Yogeswaran declares that he/she has no conflict of interest.

Paul Van Schil declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Patrick Lauwers declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Jeroen M. H. Hendriks declares that he/she has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Lung Cancer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Berzenji, L., Yogeswaran, K., Van Schil, P. et al. Use of Robotics in Surgical Treatment of Non-small Cell Lung Cancer. Curr. Treat. Options in Oncol. 21, 80 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-020-00778-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-020-00778-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation