A Comparative Analysis of Long-Term Survival of Robotic Versus Thoracoscopic Lobectomy.

Abstract

Minimally invasive lobectomy can be performed robotically or thoracoscopically. Short-term outcomes between the 2 approaches are reported to be similar; however, the comparative oncological effectiveness is not known. We sought to compare long-term survival after robotic and thoracoscopic lobectomy. We performed a propensity-matched analysis of SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results)-Medicare patients with non-small cell lung cancer from 2008 to 2013 who underwent minimally invasive lobectomy using either a thoracoscopic (n = 3881) or a robotic-assisted (n = 426) approach. Patients in the 2 groups were propensity matched 1:1 based on demographics, comorbidities, treatment, and tumor characteristics. We compared the overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) between the 2 groups. Within the matched cohort (n = 409 per group), the median age at surgery was 73 (range, 65-91) years, with a median follow-up of 35 months postsurgery. There was no difference in OS or CSM between the thoracoscopic and robotic-assisted groups (OS: 71.4% vs 73.1% at 3 years, overall P = .366; CSM: 16.6% vs 14.9% at 3 years, overall P = .639). Our propensity-matched analysis demonstrates that patients undergoing robotic-assisted lobectomy have similar OS and CSM compared with those patients undergoing thoracoscopic lobectomy. Oncologic outcomes are similar between the 2 minimally invasive approaches. These results demonstrate that further investigation is needed in the form of a randomized control trial, its variations, or additional large-scale registry analyses to verify these results.