For a study, the researchers sought to determine how RAL compares to standard VAL in perioperative outcomes and long-term efficacy in NSCLC patients. In May 2017, they initiated a single-center, open-labeled prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of RAL and VAL. About 320 patients had been registered by May 2020. Investigators compared the RAL and VAL perioperative outcomes. The 320 patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: RAL (n=157) or VAL (n=163). The length of hospital stay (P=0.76) and the rate of postoperative complications (P=0.45) were comparable between the 2 groups during the perioperative period. There was no perioperative mortality in either group. The overall amount of chest tube drainage was 830 mL [interquartile range (IQR), 550–1130 mL] versus 685 mL [IQR, 367.5–1160 mL], P=0.007, and hospitalization expenditures were considerably higher in the RAL group [$12,821 (IQR, $12,145–$13,924) vs $8,009 (IQR, $7,014–$9,003), P<0.001. The RAL group had a substantially larger number of LNs collected [11 (IQR, 8–15) vs 10 (IQR, 8–13), P=0.02], a significantly higher number of N1 LNs [6 (IQR, 4–8) vs 5 (IQR, 3–7), P=0.005], and a substantially larger number of LN stations investigated [6 (IQR, 5–7) vs 5 (IQR, 4–6), P<0.001]. Both RAL and VAL were safe and effective in the treatment of NSCLC. RAL had comparable perioperative results as well as a higher LN yield. To assess the long-term efficacy of RAL, more research was needed.
Source:journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/Abstract/2022/02000/Robotic_assisted_Versus_Video_assisted.14.aspx
