ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Oncol.
Sec. Surgical Oncology
Volume 15 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1598990
Impact of Robotic-assisted Versus Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery on Efficacy and Quality of Life in Patients with Pulmonary Opacities: A Propensity Score-Matched analysis
Provisionally accepted
Liuchun HuangShengjing LiangJing HeJunqi QinJiaping WeiJianwei HuangShucong PengXianglan ChenChunhui PanHuifang PenYu WenYifan Zhou
Yonglong Zhong*- Guangxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Nanning, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Objective: With the increasing detection of pulmonary opacities through low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), minimally invasive surgical techniques have gained prominence. While debates persist regarding the comparative efficacy and postoperative quality of life (QOL) between robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), this study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes and postoperative QOL between RATS and VATS in patients with pulmonary opacities. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent pulmonary opacities resection at the Department of Thoracic Surgery, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region People's Hospital, between January 2021 and November 2024. Patient characteristics, perioperative clinical indicators, economic parameters, and QOL scores were analyzed. Results: A total of 1,173 patients undergoing RATS and VATS was conducted, after propensity score matching, 277 pairs of patients entered into final analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Compared with VATS, RATS had shorter operative time (145.35 ± 48.51 vs. 170.39 ± 71.49, p < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss [20 (10, 20) mL vs. 30 (20, 100) mL , p < 0.001], shorter chest tube duration (3.82 ± 1.28 vs. 4.28 ± 2.63 days), less 48-hour postoperative drainage (217.73 ± 107.69 mL vs. 244.01± 120.48 mL, p = 0.007), shorter postoperative hospital stay (6.05 ± 1.54 vs. 7.14 ± 5.04, p = 0.001), and lower overall postoperative complication rate than the VATS group (9.39% vs. 15.52%, p = 0.029). But, total hospitalization costs were higher in the RATS group. Moreover, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score on postoperative day 3 in the RATS group was significantly lower (p < 0.001). At 3 months postoperatively, the RATS group reported significantly less pain/discomfort (p = 0.015) in the QOL assessment. Conclusion: RATS indicated shorter operative time, reduced postoperative complications, shorter hospital stay, less intraoperative blood loss and less compared to VATS in patients with pulmonary opacities. Although hospitalization costs were higher, RATS was associated with improved postoperative pain management and QOL regarding pain/discomfort. 3
Keywords: Robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, Pulmonary opacities, Perioperative outcomes, Postoperative quality of life
Received: 24 Mar 2025; Accepted: 07 Jul 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Huang, Liang, He, Qin, Wei, Huang, Peng, Chen, Pan, Pen, Wen, Zhou and Zhong. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Yonglong Zhong, Guangxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Nanning, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.