Masato KANZAKI, Shota MITSUBOSHI, Tamami ISAKA, Takako MATSUMOTO, Hiroe AOSHIMA, Hideyuki MAEDA, Hiroaki SHIDEI

Robot ve video yardımlı torakoskopik lobektomi deneyimlerinin lobektominin öğrenme eğrisi üzerine etkileri

Amaç: Bu çalışmada robot ve video yardımlı torakoskopik lobektominin, lobektomi öğrenme eğrisi üzerine etkileri araştırıldı. Çalışma planı: Eylül 2013 - Şubat 2020 tarihleri arasında akciğer maligniteleri nedeniyle ameliyat edilen ve robot yardımlı torakoskopik lobektomi yapılması planlanan ilk 68 ardışık hasta (28 erkek, 40 kadın; medyan yaş: 71 yıl; dağılım, 33-86 yıl) retrospektif olarak incelendi. Hastaların özellikleri ve ameliyat verileri analiz edildi ve video yardımlı torakoskopik lobektomi yapılan ilk 51 hastanın ameliyat süreleri, tek bir cerrah tarafından yapılan robot yardımlı torakoskopik lobektomi yapılanlarınki ile karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Hastaların 62’sinde primer akciğer kanseri ve altısında metastatik akciğer tümörleri mevcuttu. Primer akciğer kanserli hastaların büyük bir kısmında (%87.1) adenokarsinom vardı. En sık görülen klinik evre IA1 idi (%30.9). Hastaların hiçbirinde acil torakotomiye dönülmedi. Medyan ameliyat süresi 223.5 dk ve konsol süresi 151 dk idi. En sık görülen komplikasyon hava kaçağı idi. Hastaların tümü sağ kaldı. Video yardımlı torakoskopik lobektomiye kıyasla, medyan ameliyat süresi, robot yardımlı torakoskopik lobektomi grubunda anlamlı düzeyde daha uzundu (p=0.0002). Video yardımlı torakoskopik cerrahinin ameliyat süresi öğrenme eğrisine benzer şekilde, robot yardımlı torakoskopik cerrahinin ameliyat süresi öğrenme eğrisi birinci ila dokuzuncu olgu arasında artış gösterdi (Faz 1), 10 ila 14. olgu arasında plato çizdi (Faz 2) ve 15. olgudan sonra düşüşe geçti (Faz 3). Faz 1 ve Faz 3 arasında ameliyat süresinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde bir düşüş izlendi (p=0.0063). Sonuç: Tek bir cerrah tarafından yapılan robot yardımlı torakoskopik lobektomi sonuçları bu cerrahinin ameliyat süresinin daha uzun olduğunu, ancak perioperatif sonuçların tatmin edici olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu cerrahinin öğrenme eğrisi, video yardımlı torakoskopik cerrahi konusunda deneyimli cerrahlar için kademeli olabilir.

Effects of robot- and video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy experiences on the learning curve of lobectomy

Background: This study aims to investigate the effects of robot- and videoassisted thoracoscopic lobectomy on the learning curve of lobectomy. Methods: Between September 2013 and February 2020, the first 68 consecutive patients (28 males, 40 females; median age: 71 years; range, 33 to 86 years) who were operated for lung malignancies and scheduled for robot-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy were retrospectively analyzed. The characteristics of the patients and operative data were analyzed, and the operation times of the first 51 cases of video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy were compared with those of robot-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy performed by a single surgeon. Results: Of the patients, 62 had primary lung cancer and six had metastatic lung tumors. The majority of primary lung cancer patients (87.1%) had an adenocarcinoma. The most common clinical stage was IA1 (30.9%). There was no emergent conversion to thoracotomy in any of the patients. The median operation time was 223.5 min, and console time was 151 min. The most common complication was an air leak. All patients were alive. Compared to video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy, the median operation time was significantly longer in the robot-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy group (p=0.0002). Similar to the operation time learning curve of the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group, the operation time learning curve of the robotassisted thoracoscopic surgery group increased from the first to ninth case (Phase 1), plateaued from the 10th t o 14th c ase ( Phase 2 ), and decreased from the 15th case (Phase 3). There was a statistically significant decrease in the operation time between Phase 1 and Phase 3 (p=0.0063). Conclusion: The results of robot-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy by a single surgeon show that this surgery has a longer operation time, but the perioperative outcomes are satisfactory. The learning curve of this surgery may be gradual for experienced video-assisted thoracoscopic surgeons.

PDF

___

1. Agzarian J, Fahim C, Shargall Y, Yasufuku K, Waddell TK, Hanna WC. The use of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery for lung resection: A comprehensive systematic review. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016;28:182-92.
2. Wei B, Eldaif SM, Cerfolio RJ. Robotic lung resection for non-small cell lung cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2016;25:515-31.
3. 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;268:254-9.
4. Kanzaki M. Current status of robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for lung cancer. Surg Today 2019;49:795-802.
5. 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;102:917-24.
6. Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Skylizard L, Minnich DJ. Initial consecutive experience of completely portal robotic pulmonary resection with 4 arms. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011;142:740-6.
7. Arnold BN, Thomas DC, Bhatnagar V, Blasberg JD, Wang Z, Boffa DJ, et al. Defining the learning curve in robot-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy. Surgery 2019;165:450-4.
8. Özyurtkan MO, Kaba E, Toker A. What happens while learning robotic lobectomy for lung cancer? J Vis Surg 2017;3:27.
9. Travis WD, Asamura H, Bankier AA, Beasley MB, Detterbeck F, Flieder DB, et al. The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: Proposals for Coding T Categories for Subsolid Nodules and Assessment of Tumor Size in Part- Solid Tumors in the Forthcoming Eighth Edition of the TNM Classification of Lung Cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2016;11:1204-23.
10. Travis WD, Brambilla E, Nicholson AG, Yatabe Y, Austin JHM, Beasley MB, et al. The 2015 World Health Organization classification of lung tumors: Impact of genetic, clinical and radiologic advances since the 2004 classification. J Thorac Oncol 2015;10:1243-60.
11. Kent M, Wang T, Whyte R, Curran T, Flores R, Gangadharan S. Open, video-assisted thoracic surgery, and robotic lobectomy: Review of a national database. Ann Thorac Surg 2014;97:236-42.
12. Dylewski MR, Ohaeto AC, Pereira JF. Pulmonary resection using a total endoscopic robotic video-assisted approach. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011;23:36-42.
13. Park BJ, Flores RM, Rusch VW. Robotic assistance for video-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy: Technique and initial results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;131:54-9.
14. Gharagozloo F, Margolis M, Tempesta B, Strother E, Najam F. Robot-assisted lobectomy for early-stage lung cancer: Report of 100 consecutive cases. Ann Thorac Surg 2009;88:380-4.
15. Cao C, Cerfolio RJ, Louie BE, Melfi F, Veronesi G, Razzak R, et al. Incidence, management, and outcomes of intraoperative catastrophes during robotic pulmonary resection. Ann Thorac Surg 2019;108:1498-504.
16. Louie BE, Farivar AS, Aye RW, Vallières 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;93:1598-604.
17. Meyer M, Gharagozloo F, Tempesta B, Margolis M, Strother E, Christenson D. The learning curve of robotic lobectomy. Int J Med Robot 2012;8:448-52.
18. Baldonado JJAR, Amaral M, Garrett J, Moodie C, Robinson L, Keenan R, et al. Credentialing for robotic lobectomy: What is the learning curve? A retrospective analysis of 272 consecutive cases by a single surgeon. J Robot Surg 2019;13:663-9.