[Pubmed] Comparative outcomes of robotic- and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in thymectomy: a systematic review of
-
RSS-Bot
Auteur du sujet - Ami(e) de Diamant

- Messages : 6507
- Enregistré le : 31 mai 2020 09:57
- 6
- Zodiaque :
- Âge : 22
- Contact :
[Pubmed] Comparative outcomes of robotic- and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in thymectomy: a systematic review of
J Thorac Dis. 2026 Jan 31;18(1):41. doi: 10.21037/jtd-2025-2011. Epub 2026 Jan 19.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Thymectomy is a cornerstone in the management of thymic epithelial tumors and myasthenia gravis (MG). While minimally invasive techniques like video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) have gained prominence, robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) has emerged as a technically advanced alternative. However, comparative long-term oncological outcomes between RATS and VATS remain underexplored. This review aims to compare RATS and VATS thymectomy regarding long-term outcomes, perioperative results, and cost.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, with a protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251126351). PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched for comparative studies reporting long-term outcomes (≥12 months follow-up) of RATS versus VATS thymectomy. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS: Three retrospective cohort studies (430 patients: 181 RATS, 249 VATS) were included. No significant differences were found in long-term oncological outcomes: 5-year progression-free survival (RATS 87.7% vs. VATS 90.6%, P=0.504) and overall survival (87.7% vs. 92.2%) were comparable. Recurrence and reoperation rates were low and similar between groups. In MG patients, RATS was associated with a higher rate of complete stable remission (26% vs. 18%, P=0.06) and was an independent predictor of remission (hazard ratio: 0.472, P=0.049). Perioperatively, RATS demonstrated advantages including lower conversion rates (3% vs. 15%, P=0.03), shorter operative time (median 100 vs. 120 min, P=0.039), and reduced hospital stay (mean 1.3 vs. 2.4 days, P=0.01). Complication rates were similarly low. However, RATS was significantly more costly (¥68,122 vs. ¥37,886, P
Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4166044 ... 22+67771e2
Si vous appréciez notre travail, merci de nous soutenir un petit don en cliquant ICI
Pour obtenir la traduction en français,
cliquez sur le bouton situé dans la barre des menus en haut de cette page

Pour les donateurs, si cet article vous intéresse, nous pouvons faire l’acquisition d'un tiré-à-part.
Merci d'en faire la demande sur [email protected]
Bonne lecture...
Pour obtenir la traduction en français,
cliquez sur le bouton situé dans la barre des menus en haut de cette page

Pour les donateurs, si cet article vous intéresse, nous pouvons faire l’acquisition d'un tiré-à-part.
Merci d'en faire la demande sur [email protected]
Bonne lecture...





