OBJECTIVES Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) is increasingly used in our specialty. We surveyed European Society of Thoracic Surgeons membership with the objective to determine current status of robotic thoracic surgery practice including training perspectives.METHODS A survey of 17 questions was rolled out with 1 surgeon per unit responses considered as acceptable.RESULTS A total of 174 responses were obtained; 56% (97) were board-certified thoracic surgeons; 28% (49) were unit heads. Most responses came from Italy (20); 22% (38) had no robot in their institutions, 31% (54) had limited access and only 17% (30) had full access including proctoring. Da Vinci Xi was the commonest system in 56% (96) centres, 25% (41) of them had dual console in all systems, whereas RATS simulator was available only in half (51.18% or 87). Video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) was the most commonly adopted surgical approach in 81% of centres (139), followed by thoracotomy in 67% (115) and RATS in 36% (62); 39% spent their training time on robotic simulator for training, 51% on robotic wet/dry lab, which being no significantly different to 46-59% who had training on VATS platform. There was indeed huge overlap between simulator models or varieties usage; 52% (90) reported of robotic surgery not a part of training curriculum with no plans to introduce it in future. Overall, 51.5% (89) responded of VATS experience being helpful in robotic training in view of familiarity with minimally invasive surgery anatomical views and dissection; 71% (124) reported that future thoracic surgeons should be proficient in both VATS and RATS. Half of the respondents found no difference in earlier chest drain removal with either approach (90), 35% (60) reported no difference in postoperative pain and 49% (84) found no difference in hospital stay; 52% (90) observed better lymph node harvest by RATS.CONCLUSIONS Survey concluded on a positive response with at least 71% (123) surgeons recommending to adopt robotics in future.Minimally invasive thoracic surgery (MITS) has developed since 1990s, initially with pleural procedures but slowly expanding to Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) anatomical lung resections.

Gandhi, S., Novoa Valentin, N.M., Brunelli, A., Schmitt-Opitz, I., Lugaresi, M., Daddi, N., et al. (2024). Results of an exploratory survey within ESTS membership in 2022 on current trend of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery and its training perspectives. INTERACTIVE CARDIOVASCULAR AND THORACIC SURGERY, 38(4), 1-7 [10.1093/icvts/ivae031].

Results of an exploratory survey within ESTS membership in 2022 on current trend of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery and its training perspectives

Daddi N.
Data Curation
;
2024

Abstract

OBJECTIVES Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) is increasingly used in our specialty. We surveyed European Society of Thoracic Surgeons membership with the objective to determine current status of robotic thoracic surgery practice including training perspectives.METHODS A survey of 17 questions was rolled out with 1 surgeon per unit responses considered as acceptable.RESULTS A total of 174 responses were obtained; 56% (97) were board-certified thoracic surgeons; 28% (49) were unit heads. Most responses came from Italy (20); 22% (38) had no robot in their institutions, 31% (54) had limited access and only 17% (30) had full access including proctoring. Da Vinci Xi was the commonest system in 56% (96) centres, 25% (41) of them had dual console in all systems, whereas RATS simulator was available only in half (51.18% or 87). Video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) was the most commonly adopted surgical approach in 81% of centres (139), followed by thoracotomy in 67% (115) and RATS in 36% (62); 39% spent their training time on robotic simulator for training, 51% on robotic wet/dry lab, which being no significantly different to 46-59% who had training on VATS platform. There was indeed huge overlap between simulator models or varieties usage; 52% (90) reported of robotic surgery not a part of training curriculum with no plans to introduce it in future. Overall, 51.5% (89) responded of VATS experience being helpful in robotic training in view of familiarity with minimally invasive surgery anatomical views and dissection; 71% (124) reported that future thoracic surgeons should be proficient in both VATS and RATS. Half of the respondents found no difference in earlier chest drain removal with either approach (90), 35% (60) reported no difference in postoperative pain and 49% (84) found no difference in hospital stay; 52% (90) observed better lymph node harvest by RATS.CONCLUSIONS Survey concluded on a positive response with at least 71% (123) surgeons recommending to adopt robotics in future.Minimally invasive thoracic surgery (MITS) has developed since 1990s, initially with pleural procedures but slowly expanding to Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) anatomical lung resections.
2024
Gandhi, S., Novoa Valentin, N.M., Brunelli, A., Schmitt-Opitz, I., Lugaresi, M., Daddi, N., et al. (2024). Results of an exploratory survey within ESTS membership in 2022 on current trend of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery and its training perspectives. INTERACTIVE CARDIOVASCULAR AND THORACIC SURGERY, 38(4), 1-7 [10.1093/icvts/ivae031].
Gandhi, S.; Novoa Valentin, N. M.; Brunelli, A.; Schmitt-Opitz, I.; Lugaresi, M.; Daddi, N.; Decaluwe, H.; Batirel, H.; Veronesi, G.; Baste, J. M.; Ly...espandi
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
ivae031.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipo: Versione (PDF) editoriale / Version Of Record
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 1.06 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.06 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
ivae031_supplementary_data.zip

accesso aperto

Tipo: File Supplementare
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 34.06 kB
Formato Zip File
34.06 kB Zip File Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/1002745
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 3
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact