Skip to main content
Download PDF

Meta-analysis of clinical efficacy of thoracoscopy and robotic surgery in the treatment of mediastinal tumors

World Journal of Surgical Oncology volume 22, Article number: 70 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

Comparing the clinical efficacy of thoracoscopy and robotic surgery in the treatment of mediastinal tumors using meta-analysis.

Methods

Computer retrieval of PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for literature comparing the clinical effects of video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) and robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) in treating mediastinal tumors, with the retrieval time limit from the establishment of the database to September 2023. Two evaluators independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.

Results

A total of 19 articles were included, with a total of 3517 patients. The results of the Meta-analysis showed that the RATS group had less intraoperative bleeding [MD =  − 5.20, 95%CI (− 9.28, − 1.12), P = 0.01], lower rate of conversion to thoracotomy [OR = 0.41, 95%CI (0.23, 0.72), P = 0.002], lower rate of total postoperative complications [OR = 0.57, 95%CI (0.34, 0.95), P = 0.03], shorter postoperative drainage time [MD =  − 0.72, 95%CI (− 1.13, − 0.32), P = 0.0004], and shorter postoperative hospital stay [MD =  − 0.90, 95%CI (− 1.16, − 0.65), P < 0.001], in comparison with the VATS group. There was an insignificant difference between the two groups in terms of tumor size [MD =  − 0.02, 95%CI (− 0.33, 0.30), P = 0.91] and operation time [MD = 0.17, 95%CI (− 7.61, 7.94), P = 0.97]. However, in regards to hospitalization costs [MD = 2634.75, 95%CI (991.62, 4277.88), P = 0.002], the RATS group was more expensive than the VATS group.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted mediastinal tumor resection surgery has more advantages in terms of intraoperative bleeding, conversion to thoracotomy rate, total postoperative complication rate, postoperative drainage time, and postoperative hospital stay, in comparison with thoracoscopic-assisted mediastinal tumor resection surgery. There is an insignificant difference in tumor size and operation time between the two surgeries. However, robot-assisted mediastinal tumor resection surgery increases hospitalization costs.

Introduction

Mediastinal tumors are common diseases in thoracic surgery, including thymoma, neurogenic tumors, teratomas, etc. [1, 2]. Clinically, surgery is generally the first choice of treatment, and most patients have achieved good prognosis and improved quality of life after treatment [3]. Compared with the classic median sternotomy or anterolateral intercostal incision thoracotomy approach, a large number of cases have proven that minimally invasive surgery has advantages such as small incisions, minor trauma, fewer complications, and faster postoperative recovery [4]. Minimally invasive surgery is now widely used in the treatment of mediastinal diseases. And thus, minimally invasive surgery has been extensively employed to treat mediastinal diseases. Nevertheless, the traditional thoracoscopy has some inherent shortcomings, such as two-dimensional depth of field, insufficient handling ability in small spaces (especially in the upper mediastinum and pleural apex lesions), and difficulties in operations such as suturing and knotting [5]. In view of the defects of video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS), robot-assisted thoracic surgery was developed. The advantages of the robot system are that it can provide a high-resolution 3D field of view up to 10–15 times magnification, and thus realize a clearer observation of the structural details in the mediastinum [6]. At the same time, robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) can completely filter out the physiological tremors of the human hand to avoid accidental injury due to misoperation [7].

Previously available investigations have revealed the feasibility and safety of VATS or RATS in the treatment of mediastinal tumors. However, all of the previous results belong to single-center retrospective studies with small sample sizes. In the treatment of mediastinal tumors, it is still unclear whether RATS can achieve the same or even better surgical results as VATS. Therefore, our present work incorporates the latest literature and conducts a comprehensive meta-analysis in order to provide a higher level of evidence-based medical evidence for clinical practice.

Materials and methods

This meta-analysis was performed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023468350).

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria: (i) included study types: retrospective studies, prospective studies, or randomized controlled trials; (ii) study subjects: patients diagnosed with mediastinal tumors and meet the surgical indications; (iii) intervention measurements: RATS or VATS treatment of mediastinal tumors; (iv) outcome indicators: operation time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion to thoracotomy rate, postoperative drainage time, postoperative hospital stay, total postoperative complication rate, etc.

Exclusion criteria: (i) literature with incomplete data; (ii) non-clinical comparative studies such as reviews, case reports, experience summaries, or single-arm efficacy observations; (iii) repeatedly published literature.

Literature search methods

Using a combination of subject words and free words for retrieval, the computer searches the PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for literature comparing the clinical effects of RATS and VATS in the treatment of mediastinal tumors. The retrieval time limit is from the establishment of the database to September 2023. The main English search terms are robot-assisted thoracic surgery, robotic, robot-assisted, da Vinci, video-assisted thoracic surgery, video-assisted, mediastinal tumors, mediastinal neoplasms, mediastinum cancers, and mediastinal cancer.

Screening and data extraction of literature

Two researchers independently completed the literature search and assessed whether to preliminarily include the study by reading the titles and abstracts of the retrieved literature. After the preliminary search was completed, they read the full text of the retrieved literature to decide whether to include it in the study. For studies with doubts, the decision on whether to include them was made after discussion with the corresponding author of this study.

Quality evaluation of the included studies

The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) is used to score the included studies, which includes a total of 9 items, including the selection of cohorts (4 points), comparability (2 points), and exposure (3 points) [8].

Statistical analysis

Use RevMan 5.4 software for statistical analysis. Statistical consolidation and quantitative evaluation of continuous variables are performed by calculating the mean difference (MD), and the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the MD is also calculated. Use the odds ratio (OR) for statistical consolidation and quantitative evaluation of binary variables, and calculate the 95% CI of the OR. The heterogeneity between study results is calculated using the default Q test method of RevMan 5.4 software to calculate chi2 and I2. If I2 < 50%, P > 0.1, it is considered that there is insignificant heterogeneity between the studies, and the data are analyzed using a fixed-effects model. If I2 > 50%, P ≤ 0.1, it is considered that there is significant heterogeneity between the studies, and the data is analyzed using a random-effects model. P ≤ 0.05 indicates that the difference is statistically significant. Sensitivity analysis is used to test the stability of the results, and funnel plots are used to judge publication bias.

Results

Literature search results

A total of 432 articles were retrieved through the database. Finally, by reading the titles and abstracts, 182 duplicate articles and 250 obviously irrelevant articles were excluded; see Fig. 1. After careful reading, a total of 19 articles [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27] were finally included. The detailed information and quality evaluation of the characteristics of all included studies are summarized in Table 1. A total of 3517 patients with mediastinal tumors were included, of which 1742 patients underwent RATS treatment and 1775 patients underwent VATS treatment.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram of literature retrieval and screening

Full size image
Table 1 Basic information about the included studies
Full size table

Quality evaluation of the included literature

The NOS scores for the included cohort studies are shown in Table 1 and all studies were of high quality with NOS scores between 7 and 9.

Meta-analysis results

Comparison of tumor size

A total of 10 articles [10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 22,23,24,25,26] reported the tumor size of the two groups of patients, involving a total of 1346 patients. There was statistical heterogeneity between the studies (P < 0.00001, I2 = 83%, so a random-effects model was used for data analysis. The results [MD =  − 0.02, 95%CI (− 0.33, 0.30), P = 0.91] indicate that there is an insignificant difference in tumor size between the RATS group and the VATS group. The meta-analysis results are shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Meta-analysis forest plot of the tumor size

Full size image

Comparison of operation time

A total of 15 articles [9,10,11,12,13,14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23,24,25,26,27] reported the operation time of the two groups of patients, involving a total of 1475 patients. There was statistical heterogeneity between the studies (P < 0.00001, I2 = 87%, so a random-effects model was used for data analysis. The results [MD = 0.17, 95%CI (–7.61, 7.94), P = 0.97] indicate that there is a statistically insignificant difference in the operation time between the two surgical methods, suggesting that there is an insignificant difference in the comparison of operation time between the RATS group and the VATS group. The meta-analysis results are shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Meta-analysis forest plot of the operation time

Full size image

Comparison of the incidence of intraoperative blood loss

A total of 10 articles [10, 12,13,14, 16, 19, 23,24,25,26] reported the intraoperative blood loss of the two groups of patients, involving a total of 746 patients. There was statistical heterogeneity between the studies (P = 0.005, I2 = 62%, so a random-effects model was used for data analysis. The results [MD = –5.20, 95%CI (− 9.28, − 1.12), P = 0.01] indicate that there is a statistically significant difference in intraoperative blood loss between the two surgical methods, suggesting that the RATS group had less intraoperative blood loss than the VATS group. The meta-analysis results are shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Meta-analysis forest of the intraoperative blood loss

Full size image

Comparison of conversion to thoracotomy rate

A total of 6 articles [10, 12,13,14, 16, 19, 23,24,25,26] reported the thoracotomy rate of the two groups of patients, involving a total of 1020 patients. There was no statistical heterogeneity between the studies (P = 0.92 > 0.1, I2 = 0%, so a fixed-effects model was used for data analysis. The results [OR = 0.41, 95%CI (0.23, 0.72), P = 0.002] indicate that there is a statistically significant difference in the conversion to thoracotomy between the two surgical methods, suggesting that the incidence of conversion to thoracotomy in the RATS group was lower than that in the VATS group. The meta-analysis results are shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Meta-analysis forest plot of the conversion to thoracotomy rate

Full size image

Comparison of incidence of the total postoperative complications

A total of 10 articles [12, 13, 16, 18, 21, 23,24,25,26,27] reported the total postoperative complications of the two groups of patients, involving a total of 1023 patients. There was no statistical heterogeneity between the studies (P = 0.88 > 0.1, I2 = 0%, so a fixed-effects model was used for data analysis. The results [OR = 0.57, 95%CI (0.34, 0.95), P = 0.03] indicate that there is a statistically significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two surgical methods, suggesting that the incidence of postoperative complications in the RATS group was lower than that in the VATS group. The meta-analysis results are shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Meta-analysis forest plot of incidence of the total postoperative complications

Full size image

Comparison of the incidence of postoperative drainage time

A total of 9 articles [10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 19, 23, 26, 27] reported the postoperative drainage time of the two groups of patients, involving a total of 781 patients. There was statistical heterogeneity between the studies (P < 0.00001, I2 = 92%, so a random-effects model was used for data analysis. The results [MD =  − 0.72, 95%CI (− 1.13, − 0.32), P = 0.0004] indicate that there is a statistically significant difference in the postoperative drainage time between the two surgical methods, suggesting that the postoperative drainage time in the RATS group was shorter than that in the VATS group. The meta-analysis results are shown in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Meta-analysis forest plot of postoperative drainage time

Full size image

Comparison of postoperative hospital stay

A total of 16 articles [10, 11, 13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24, 26, 27] reported the postoperative hospital stay of the two groups of patients, involving a total of 3211 patients. There was statistical heterogeneity between the studies (P < 0.00001, I2 = 82%, so a random-effects model was used for data analysis. The results [MD =  − 0.90, 95%CI (− 1.16, − 0.65), P < 0.001] indicate that there is a statistically significant difference in the postoperative hospital stay between the two surgical methods, suggesting that the postoperative hospital stay in the RATS group was shorter than that in the VATS group. The meta-analysis results are shown in Fig. 8.

Fig. 8
figure 8

Meta-analysis forest plot of postoperative hospital stay

Full size image

Comparison of hospitalization costs

A total of 4 articles [10, 21, 24, 25] reported the hospitalization costs of the two groups of patients, involving a total of 506 patients. There was significant statistical heterogeneity between the studies (P < 0.00001, I2 = 98%, so a random-effects model was used for data analysis. The results [MD = 2634.75, 95%CI (991.62, 4277.88), P = 0.002] indicate that there is a statistically significant difference in hospitalization costs between the two surgical methods, suggesting that the hospitalization costs of the RATS group were higher than those of the VATS group. The meta-analysis results are shown in Fig. 9.

Fig. 9
figure 9

Meta-analysis forest plot of hospitalization costs

Full size image

Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis was performed on each outcome indicator using the one-by-one deletion method. The results of the sensitivity analysis showed that the effect size results did not change after the above indicators were deleted one by one, indicating that the stability of the results statistically combined after the above indicators is very high.

Publication bias

By drawing funnel plots for each outcome indicator, it was found that all studies were evenly distributed on both sides of the funnel plot, indicating that the publication bias of this study is small. The funnel plot drawn for the incidence of total postoperative complications as an example is shown in Fig. 10.

Fig. 10
figure 10

Funnel plot of incidence of the total postoperative complications

Full size image

Discussion

The mediastinal space is narrow, the structure is complex, the tissue origin is diverse, and it is adjacent to important organs such as large blood vessels and the heart [28, 29]. The current treatment principle for mediastinal tumors is still comprehensive treatment mainly based on surgery [28, 29]. In 2001, Yoskino performed the world’s first robot-assisted mediastinal tumor resection, laying the foundation for surgical robots to perform precise surgery in the narrow mediastinal area [30]. Currently, minimally invasive surgery is rapidly developing, and da Vinci robot-assisted mediastinal tumor resection and thoracoscopy-assisted mediastinal tumor resection are increasingly chosen by surgeons. However, whether robot assistance is superior to thoracoscopy assistance remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to explore and compare the efficacy and safety of RATS and VATS in the treatment of mediastinal tumors.

The results of the meta-analysis show that there is an insignificant difference in tumor size between the two groups. There is also an insignificant difference in operation time between the RATS group and the VATS group. According to previous research [11], the operation time of RATS is usually longer, which may be attributed to the additional setup time and the impact of the learning curve of RATS. With the accumulation of the surgeon’s experience and the proficiency of the robot team, the operation time of RATS can be significantly shortened. In terms of intraoperative blood loss, the results of this study show that the intraoperative blood loss in the RATS group is less than that in the VATS group. This probably stems from the fact that the RATS can provide a three-dimensional magnified view during surgery, more flexible operation and eliminate hand tremors, thereby accurately exposing the complex anatomical structure around the resection target [6]. This helps doctors to precisely perform operations during surgery and better control bleeding from small blood vessels.

In terms of conversion to thoracotomy, the RATS group had more advantages than the VATS group. Some of the conversions to thoracotomy are due to tumor invasion into the anonymous vein or pleural adhesion; another part of the conversion to thoracotomy is due to the large size of the tumor and suspected pericardial infiltration. In these cases, the choice of conversion to thoracotomy is reasonable. However, it should be noted that although the conversion rate to thoracotomy in the RATS group is lower than that in the VATS group, the conversion to thoracotomy in RATS is not as convenient as in VATS.

The occurrence of postoperative complications is an important indicator for assessing short-term postoperative efficacy. The results of this study show that the overall incidence of postoperative complications in the RATS group is lower than that in the VATS group. The main reasons are listed as follows: (1) compared with VATS, RATS recovers faster after surgery, and thus the risk of complications is significantly reduced. (2) RATS improves the comfort of the surgeon’s operation, which helps to increase the complete resection rate of tumors, the thoroughness of anterior mediastinal fat clearance, etc., on the basis of adhering to safety, tumor-free and minimally invasive, and reduces postoperative complications. In clinical practice, we have also found that RATS has more advantages in the anatomy of anterior mediastinal fat and adipose tissue. RATS can provide more detailed tumor anatomy, thereby better protecting the integrity of the tumor membrane.

In terms of postoperative drainage time, the RATS group had a shorter postoperative drainage time than the VATS group. We analyzed the results of the study and believed that this is related to the greater minimally invasive advantage of RATS than VATS. RATS makes the surgical process more precise, the hemostasis more thorough, and the stimulation to the surrounding tissues less. At the same time, the lesions are completely removed, and the surrounding adipose tissue can also be completely removed. All of the above-mentioned factors make the postoperative drainage time of the RATS group shorter. In terms of postoperative hospital stay, our research results disclosed that patients in the RATS group had a shorter postoperative hospital stay than the patients in the VATS group. This results from the fact that RATS is more minimally invasive, thus causing less postoperative pain and faster recovery. Patients recover faster after surgery, which shortens the postoperative hospital stay to a certain extent. This is also in line with the concept of enhanced recovery after surgery [31].

The limitations of this meta-analysis: (i) there is significant heterogeneity in hospital costs, which may be caused by differences in RATS charging standards in different medical centers; (ii) almost all of the studies included are retrospective clinical studies, selection bias is inevitable, and verification is needed with larger sample randomized controlled trials; (iii) there is currently a lack of long-term follow-up data for two types of surgeries, and we hope to further improve this data in the future; (iv) this study did not make a more detailed comparison of the location of mediastinal tumors, which may lead to some bias in the results.

Conclusion

In summary, through the meta-analysis of the included literatures, we found that robot-assisted mediastinal tumor resection has more advantages in terms of intraoperative blood loss, conversion to thoracotomy rate, total postoperative complication rate, postoperative drainage time, and postoperative hospital stay than thoracoscopic-assisted mediastinal tumor resection. However, robot-assisted mediastinal tumor resection increases hospital costs. However, there is currently a lack of long-term follow-up studies on patients after surgery. We look forward to publishing more large-sample and high-quality randomized controlled studies in the future.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

RATS:

Robot-assisted thoracic surgery

VATS:

Video-assisted thoracic surgery

NOS:

Newcastle-Ottawa Scale

OR:

Odds ratio

MD:

Mean difference

CI:

Confidence interval

References

  1. Zhou D, Liu QX, Zheng H, Lu X, Dai JG. Postoperative radiotherapy for completely resected thymoma: differing roles in masaoka stage II and stage III disease. Asian J Surg. 2022;45(12):2670–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hong Z, Gou W, Cui B, et al. Analysis of the efficacy of the da Vinci robot in surgery for posterior mediastinal neurogenic tumors. BMC Surg. 2022;22(1):413.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Hong Z, Bai X, Sheng Y, et al. Efficacy of using Maryland forceps versus electrocoagulation hooks in da Vinci robot-assisted thoracoscopic mediastinal tumor resection. World J Surg Oncol. 2023;21(1):184.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Seong YW, Kang CH, Choi JW, et al. Early clinical outcomes of robot-assisted surgery for anterior mediastinal mass: its superiority over a conventional sternotomy approach evaluated by propensity score matching. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;45(3):e68–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen X, Ma Q, Wang X, Wang A, Huang D. Subxiphoid and subcostal thoracoscopic surgical approach for thymectomy. Surg Endosc. 2021;35(9):5239–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hong Z, Cui B, Sheng Y, et al. Effects of da Vinci robot versus thoracoscopic surgery on body trauma and lymphocyte subsets in lung cancer patients: a propensity score matching study. J Surg Oncol. 2023;128(4):667–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen K, Zhang X, Jin R, et al. Robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for mediastinal masses: a single-institution experience. J Thorac Dis. 2020;12(2):105–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rückert JC, Swierzy M, Ismail M. Comparison of robotic and nonrobotic thoracoscopic thymectomy: a cohort study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;141(3):673–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ye B, Tantai JC, Li W, et al. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in the surgical treatment of Masaoka stage I thymoma. World J Surg Oncol. 2013;11:157.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Jun Y, Hao L, Demin L, Guohua D, Hua J, Yi S. Da Vinci robot-assisted system for thymectomy: experience of 55 patients in China. Int J Med Robot. 2014;10(3):294–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rowse PG, Roden AC, Corl FM, et al. Minimally invasive thymectomy: the Mayo Clinic experience. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;4(6):519–26.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Suda T, Kaneda S, Hachimaru A, et al. Thymectomy via a subxiphoid approach: single-port and robot-assisted. J Thorac Dis. 2016;8(Suppl 3):S265–71.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Qian L, Chen X, Huang J, et al. A comparison of three approaches for the treatment of early-stage thymomas: robot-assisted thoracic surgery, video-assisted thoracic surgery, and median sternotomy. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9(7):1997–2005.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Kamel MK, Villena-Vargas J, Rahouma M, et al. National trends and perioperative outcomes of robotic resection of thymic tumours in the United States: a propensity matching comparison with open and video-assisted thoracoscopic approaches†. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;56(4):762–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Şehitogullari A, Nasır A, Anbar R, Erdem K, Bilgin C. Comparison of perioperative outcomes of videothoracoscopy and robotic surgical techniques in thymoma. Asian J Surg. 2020;43(1):244–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yang CJ, Hurd J, Shah SA, et al. A national analysis of open versus minimally invasive thymectomy for stage I to III thymoma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020;160(2):555-567.e15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Li XK, Xu Y, Cong ZZ, Zhou H, Wu WJ, Shen Y. Comparison of the progression-free survival between robot-assisted thymectomy and video-assisted thymectomy for thymic epithelial tumors: a propensity score matching study. J Thorac Dis. 2020;12(8):4033–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. El-Akkawi AI, Eckardt J. Comparison of surgical outcomes after robotic assisted thoracic surgery, video-assisted thoracic surgery and open resection of thymoma. Mediastinum. 2021;5:11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Raja SM, Guptill JT, McConnell A, Al-Khalidi HR, Hartwig MG, Klapper JA. Perioperative outcomes of thymectomy in myasthenia gravis: a thoracic surgery database analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2022;113(3):904–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Imielski B, Kurihara C, Manerikar A, et al. Comparative effectiveness and cost-efficiency of surgical approaches for thymectomy. Surgery. 2020;168(4):737–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Salfity HV, Timsina L, Ceppa DP, Birdas TJ. Minimally invasive surgery in the management of resectable thymoma: a retrospective analysis from the National Cancer Database. J Thorac Dis. 2021;13(11):6353–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Chiba Y, Miyajima M, Takase Y, et al. Robot-assisted and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for thymoma: comparison of the perioperative outcomes using inverse probability of treatment weighting method. Gland Surg. 2022;11(8):1287–300.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Li R, Ma Z, Qu C, et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes between robotic-assisted and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for mediastinal masses in patients with different body mass index ranges: a population-based study. Front Surg. 2022;9:963335.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Jiang B, Tan QY, Deng B, Mei LY, Lin YD, Zhu LF. Robot-assisted thymectomy in large anterior mediastinal tumors: a comparative study with video-assisted thymectomy and open surgery. Thorac Cancer. 2023;14(3):267–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hong Z, Sheng Y, Cui B, et al. A comparative study of robotic surgery and thoracoscopic surgery for mediastinal cysts. BMC Surg. 2023;23(1):102.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Ochi T, Suzuki H, Hirai Y, et al. Robot-assisted thoracic surgery versus video-assisted thoracic surgery for mediastinal lesions. J Thorac Dis. 2023;15(7):3840–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Wightman SC, Shrager JB. Non-myasthenia gravis immune syndromes and the thymus: is there a role for thymectomy? Thorac Surg Clin. 2019;29(2):215–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Issoufou I, Lakranbi M, Sani R, et al. Tumeurs neurogènes du médiastin de l’adulte [Neurogenic mediastinal tumors in adults]. Rev Pneumol Clin. 2016;72(5):310–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yoshino I, Hashizume M, Shimada M, et al. Thoracoscopic thymomectomy with the da Vinci computer-enhanced surgical system. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001;122(4):783–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Shen C, Che G. Tubeless minimally invasive treatment: taking a new step in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). Thorac Cancer. 2019;10(11):2067–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research was supported by the Gansu Province Key R&D Project (22YF7FA095).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wuwei Liangzhou Hospital, Gansu, China

    Jiying Dang, Shize Sun, Zhengqi Wu, Yidong Shan & Huiling Zhang

Authors
  1. Jiying Dang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shize Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhengqi Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yidong Shan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Huiling Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JYD and HLZ have made substantial contributions to conception and design of the study, written the manuscript; ZQW and SZS searched literature, extracted data from the collected literature and analyzed the data; JYD and YDS revised the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huiling Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not appliance.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dang, J., Sun, S., Wu, Z. et al. Meta-analysis of clinical efficacy of thoracoscopy and robotic surgery in the treatment of mediastinal tumors. World J Surg Onc 22, 70 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-024-03325-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-024-03325-5

Keywords

World Journal of Surgical Oncology

ISSN: 1477-7819

Contact us