Comparative Clinical and Economic Analysis of Robotic versus Video-assisted thoracoscopic Anatomical Resection for Lung Cancer.

[PURPOSE] This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and costs of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) and video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) in patients undergoing minimally invasive anatomical resection for primary lung cancer.

[MATERIALS AND METHODS] A retrospective analysis was conducted on 2,086 patients who underwent surgery at a single institution from January 2017 to July 2020, including 134 RATS and 1,952 VATS cases. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied, resulting in 268 matched patients (134 RATS and 134 VATS). Cost data were obtained from hospital billing files, encompassing 20 categories, including total hospitalization fees, anesthesia fees, surgery fees, costs of surgical instruments and materials, and general examination fees.

[RESULTS] After PSM, RATS patients had a shorter median postoperative stay (5 days vs. 6 days, p = 0.009) and lower thoracotomy conversion rate (1.5% vs. 14.9%, p < 0.001) than VATS. However, RATS incurred higher total costs by an average of $1,230 (p < 0.001), mainly due to increased surgical expenses ($1,163, p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, RATS (12.41%, p < 0.001), neoadjuvant therapy (13.3%, p = 0.005), complications (4.2%, p < 0.001), and length of stay (2.0%, p < 0.001) were found to be associated with higher costs.

[CONCLUSION] Although RATS has been shown to reduce the thoracotomy conversion rate and length of hospital stay, it incurs higher costs than VATS, primarily due to increased surgical expenses. The justification for RATS should be further evaluated through sustainability and cost-effectiveness studies with long-term follow-up.