Evidence Hub

Robotic versus thoracoscopic thymectomy: The current evidence

Buentzel J, Heinz J, Hinterthaner M, Schöndube FA, Straube C, Roever C, Emmert A

The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS, 2017

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to analyze all relevant comparative studies comparing robot-assisted minimally invasive thymectomy (RATS) and video-assisted thoracic surgery thymectomy (VATS) in terms of surgical and short-term outcomes.

METHODS: A systematic search for articles describing robot-assisted and video-assisted thymectomy and addressing surgical outcomes, operation time, length of hospitalization, intra-operative blood loss, conversion to sternotomy and post-operative complications was performed using the medical databases.

RESULTS: Of the 478 studies from preliminary screening, five articles were included. By pooling these studies, we found no significant differences between the RATS and VATS (odds ratio 1.24 (95% CI 0.51, 3.03; p = 0.63)).There were no significant differences in comparison of conversion rates, operation time (26.29 min (95% CI -2.57, 55.35; p = 0.07)) and length of hospitalization (-1.58 days (95% CI -4.78, 1.62; p = 0.33)). There was a slightly higher blood loss in the RATS group.

CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis did not detect any statistically significant differences in surgery outcomes between the two groups.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free