Greater ipsilateral rectus muscle atrophy after robotic thoracic surgery compared with open and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery approaches

Yoyo Wang BS , Ryan J. Randle MD , Prasha Bhandari MPH , Hao He PhD , Winston L. Trope BA , Brandon A. Guenthart MD , H. Henry Guo MD , Douglas Z. Liou MD , Leah M. Backhus MD , Mark F. Berry MD , Joseph B. Shrager MD , Natalie S. Lui MD
{"title":"Greater ipsilateral rectus muscle atrophy after robotic thoracic surgery compared with open and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery approaches","authors":"Yoyo Wang BS ,&nbsp;Ryan J. Randle MD ,&nbsp;Prasha Bhandari MPH ,&nbsp;Hao He PhD ,&nbsp;Winston L. Trope BA ,&nbsp;Brandon A. Guenthart MD ,&nbsp;H. Henry Guo MD ,&nbsp;Douglas Z. Liou MD ,&nbsp;Leah M. Backhus MD ,&nbsp;Mark F. Berry MD ,&nbsp;Joseph B. Shrager MD ,&nbsp;Natalie S. Lui MD","doi":"10.1016/j.xjon.2024.05.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Robotic thoracic surgery provides another minimally invasive approach in addition to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) that yields less pain and faster recovery compared with open surgery. However, robotic incisions are generally placed more inferiorly, which may increase the risk of intercostal nerve injury that affects the abdominal wall. We hypothesized that a robotic approach causes greater ipsilateral rectus muscle atrophy compared with open and VATS approaches.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The cross-sectional area and density of bilateral rectus abdominis muscles were measured on computed tomography scans in patients who underwent lobectomy in 2018. The differences between the contralateral and ipsilateral muscles were compared between preoperative and 6-month surveillance scans. Changes were compared among the open, VATS, and robotic approaches through a mixed effects model after adjustments of correlation and covariates.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 99 lobectomies, 25 (25.3%) were open, 56 (56.6%) VATS, and 18 (18.1%) robotic. The difference between the contralateral and ipsilateral rectus muscle cross-sectional area was significantly larger at 6 months after robotic surgery compared with open (31.4% vs 9.5%, <em>P</em> = .049) and VATS (31.4% vs 14.1%, <em>P</em> = .021). There were no significant differences in the cross-sectional area between the open and VATS approach.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>In this retrospective analysis, there was greater ipsilateral rectus muscle atrophy associated with robotic thoracic surgery compared with open or VATS approaches. These findings should be correlated with clinical symptoms and followed to assess for resolution or persistence.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74032,"journal":{"name":"JTCVS open","volume":"20 ","pages":"Pages 202-209"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666273624001311/pdfft?md5=b8117a758f48bb0120e84f964c3dc660&pid=1-s2.0-S2666273624001311-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JTCVS open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666273624001311","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Robotic thoracic surgery provides another minimally invasive approach in addition to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) that yields less pain and faster recovery compared with open surgery. However, robotic incisions are generally placed more inferiorly, which may increase the risk of intercostal nerve injury that affects the abdominal wall. We hypothesized that a robotic approach causes greater ipsilateral rectus muscle atrophy compared with open and VATS approaches.

Methods

The cross-sectional area and density of bilateral rectus abdominis muscles were measured on computed tomography scans in patients who underwent lobectomy in 2018. The differences between the contralateral and ipsilateral muscles were compared between preoperative and 6-month surveillance scans. Changes were compared among the open, VATS, and robotic approaches through a mixed effects model after adjustments of correlation and covariates.

Results

Of 99 lobectomies, 25 (25.3%) were open, 56 (56.6%) VATS, and 18 (18.1%) robotic. The difference between the contralateral and ipsilateral rectus muscle cross-sectional area was significantly larger at 6 months after robotic surgery compared with open (31.4% vs 9.5%, P = .049) and VATS (31.4% vs 14.1%, P = .021). There were no significant differences in the cross-sectional area between the open and VATS approach.

Conclusions

In this retrospective analysis, there was greater ipsilateral rectus muscle atrophy associated with robotic thoracic surgery compared with open or VATS approaches. These findings should be correlated with clinical symptoms and followed to assess for resolution or persistence.

与开放式和视频辅助胸腔镜手术方法相比,机器人胸腔镜手术后同侧直肌萎缩更严重
目的除视频辅助胸腔镜手术(VATS)外,机器人胸腔镜手术提供了另一种微创方法,与开放手术相比,机器人胸腔镜手术疼痛更轻、恢复更快。然而,机器人切口一般放置在更靠下的位置,这可能会增加肋间神经损伤的风险,从而影响腹壁。我们假设,与开腹和VATS方法相比,机器人方法会导致同侧腹直肌萎缩程度更大。方法通过计算机断层扫描测量了2018年接受肺叶切除术的患者双侧腹直肌的横截面积和密度。比较术前扫描和 6 个月监测扫描中对侧肌肉和同侧肌肉的差异。在调整相关性和协变量后,通过混合效应模型比较了开放式、VATS 和机器人方法之间的变化。结果 在 99 例肺叶切除术中,25 例(25.3%)为开放式,56 例(56.6%)为 VATS,18 例(18.1%)为机器人。与开腹手术(31.4% vs 9.5%,P = .049)和VATS手术(31.4% vs 14.1%,P = .021)相比,机器人手术后6个月,对侧和同侧直肌横截面积的差异显著增大。结论在这项回顾性分析中,与开放式或 VATS 方法相比,机器人胸腔镜手术导致的同侧直肌萎缩更严重。这些发现应与临床症状相关联,并进行跟踪以评估症状是否缓解或持续。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信