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

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.
Competing Interests: The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest.
(© 2024 The Author(s).)