Comparison of active versus passive robotic-endoscope-holder-assisted unisurgeon uniportal thoracoscopic surgery in terms of surgical efficacy and patient safety.

BACKGROUND

Few studies have compared robotic-arm-assisted unisurgeon uniportal surgeries with conventional human-assisted uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgeries (VATSs) in terms of surgical efficacy and patient safety. In the present study, we compared the aforementioned surgeries.

METHODS

We explored two robotic endoscope holders-a passive robotic platform (ENDOFIX, EA group) and a pedal-controlled active robotic platform (MTG-100, MA group)-for unisurgeon uniportal surgeries and compared the surgical outcomes with those of human-assisted uniportal surgeries (HA group) in 228 patients with a lung lesion (size, <5 cm). The primary parameters for this comparison were surgical efficacy, patient safety, and short-term patient outcomes.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed among the EA, MA, and HA groups. The success rate of robotic-arm-assisted unisurgeon uniportal wedge resection was 100%, regardless of the group. No major differences were noted in preparation time between the EA and MA groups. Segmentectomy was more favorable in the EA group than in the MA group. The rates of surgical conversion were 5% and 60% in the EA and MA groups, respectively. The EA and MA groups did not differ considerably from the HA group in terms of postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Unisurgeon uniportal wedge resection may be effectively performed using a robotic endoscope holder, without the need for any human assistants with an expert hand. However, the rate of surgical conversion increases with the complexity of uniportal anatomic resections. The passive platform appears to be more suitable for unisurgeon uniportal surgery than the active pedal-controlled platform given the equipment in contemporary operating rooms.