Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery: a promising tool should not be denied
We are grateful for the reviewers’ comments on our manuscript (1). A robotic system has been used in thoracic surgery for more than 10 years, and the technique has matured and become common practice in many institutions.
Many studies have demonstrated the feasibility and safety of the robotic system and have shown that it can achieve equivalent short-term surgical efficacy when compared with traditional video-assisted thoracic surgery, but a higher cost is associated with robotic surgery (2-4). The high cost is due to the additional expenses of the disposable robotic instruments and the substantial overall cost to acquire and maintain the robotic system. Some studies have shown that robotic surgery decreases a portion of overall costs as hospital stay length and overall nursing care costs are reduced. Because the robotic technique continues to evolve and expand, manufacturers of robotic surgical systems will continue to develop new generations of robotic systems to reduce costs and remain competitive (4-8).
Currently, comprehensive evaluations of robotic techniques must be performed to achieve maximal benefits for potential patients. Additionally, in some cases, such as when the patient harbors an infection, the robotic system may be the better choice for the surgeon. We should not abandon this promising technique due to the temporary costs associated with it. The future of robotic surgery is bright.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge David Tian, Senior Editor of AME Publishing Company, for editing support.
Footnote
Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
References
- Augustin F, Bodner J. Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery: a helpful tool or just another expensive gadget? J Thorac Dis 2017;9:2881-3. [Crossref]
- Wei S, Chen M, Chen N, et al. Feasibility and safety of robot-assisted thoracic surgery for lung lobectomy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 2017;15:98. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Liang H, Liang W, Zhao L, et al. Robotic Versus Video-assisted Lobectomy/Segmentectomy for Lung Cancer: A Meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2017. [Epub ahead of print]. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Park BJ, Flores RM. Cost comparison of robotic, video-assisted thoracic surgery and thoracotomy approaches to pulmonary lobectomy. Thorac Surg Clin 2008;18:297-300. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Augustin F, Bodner J, Maier H, et al. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive vs. thoracoscopic lung lobectomy: comparison of perioperative results in a learning curve setting. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2013;398:895-901. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Dylewski MR, Lazzaro RS. Robotics - The answer to the Achilles' heel of VATS pulmonary resection. Chin J Cancer Res 2012;24:259-60. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Deen SA, Wilson JL, Wilshire CL, 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;97:1000-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Wei B, D'Amico TA. Thoracoscopic versus robotic approaches: advantages and disadvantages. Thorac Surg Clin 2014;24:177-88. [Crossref] [PubMed]
