Search

Objective: Our objective was to evaluate for any changes in quality or cost when robotic lung resection is used with significant trainee participation. Methods: All anatomic lung resections between January 2006 and June 2016 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Clinical data were recorded by double entry. Cost and cancer-related data were gathered from the business analytics department and tumor registry. Robotic outcomes were compared to an ongoing thoracotomy and video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) experience. Propensity scores using age, sex, and comorbidities were assigned for statistical analysis. Survival was evaluated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: Of 523 consecutive cases, 483 were included (211 robotic, 210 thoracotomy, 62 VATS). There were 74 robotic cases (35%) performed by trainees as the console surgeon. Length of stay was shortest for robotics (3 days) compared to thoracotomy (7 days, P 0.25). There was no significant difference in negative margin rates. Total cost related to the hospitalization for surgery was $5,721 less for robotics compared to thoracotomy ( P = 0.003) but comparable to VATS. Trainees served as console surgeon in 0% of cases in the first 2 years of robotics but increased to 79% in the last year of the study. Conclusions: Robotic lung resection can be safely performed and taught in an academic medical center without sacrificing quality or cost.