Objective: To compare the safety/efficacy of the robotic-assisted lobectomy/segmentectomy (RAL/S) with the video-assisted lobectomy/segmentectomy (VAL/S) for radical lung cancer resection.Background:
It remains uncertain whether the newly developed RAL/S is comparable with the VAL/S.Methods:
A comprehensive search of online databases was performed. Perioperative outcomes were synthesized. Cumulative meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the temporal trend of pooled outcomes. Specific subgroups (propensity score matching studies, pure lobectomy studies) were examined.Results:
Analysis of 14 studies including a total of 7438 patients was performed. RAL/S was performed on 3239 patients, whereas the other 4199 patients underwent VAL/S. The 30-day mortality [0.7% vs 1.1%; odds ratio (OR) 0.53, P = 0.045] and conversion rate to open surgery (10.3% vs 11.9%; OR 0.57, P < 0.001) were significantly lower in patients who underwent RAL/S than VAL/S. Meanwhile, the postoperative complications (27.5% vs 28.2%; OR 0.95, P = 0.431), operation time [176.63 vs 162.74 min; standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.30, P = 0.086], duration of hospitalization (4.90 vs 5.23 days; SMD −0.08, P = 0.292), days to tube removal (4.10 vs 3.53 days; SMD 0.25, P = 0.120), retrieved lymph node (11.96 vs 10.67; SMD 0.46, P = 0.381), and retrieved lymph node station (4.98 vs 4.32; SMD 0.83, P = 0.261) were similar between the 2 groups. The cumulative meta-analyses suggested that the relative effects between 2 groups have already stabilized. All outcomes of subgroup and overall analyses were similar.Conclusions:
This up-to-date meta-analysis confirms that RAL/S is a feasible and safe alternative to VAL/S for radical resection of lung cancer. Future studies should focus on the long-term benefits and cost effectiveness of RAL/S compared with VAL/S.