New to MyHealth?
Manage Your Care From Anywhere.
Access your health information from any device with MyHealth. You can message your clinic, view lab results, schedule an appointment, and pay your bill.
The oncologic efficacy of minimally invasive thymectomy for thymoma is not well characterized. We compared short-term outcomes and overall survival between open and minimally invasive (video-assisted thoracoscopic and robotic) approaches using the National Cancer Data Base.Perioperative outcomes and survival of patients who underwent open versus minimally invasive thymectomy for clinical stage I to III thymoma from 2010 to 2014 in the National Cancer Data Base were evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling and propensity score-matched analysis. Predictors of minimally invasive use were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. Outcomes of surgical approach were evaluated using an intent-to-treat analysis.Of the 1223 thymectomies that were evaluated, 317 (26%) were performed minimally invasively (141 video-assisted thoracoscopic and 176 robotic). The minimally invasive group had a shorter median length of stay when compared with the open group (3 [2-4] days vs 4 [3-6] days, P < .001). In a propensity score-matched analysis of 185 open and 185 minimally invasive (video-assisted thoracoscopic + robotic) thymectomy, the minimally invasive group continued to have a shorter median length of stay (3 vs 4 days, P < .01) but did not have significant differences in margin positivity (P = .84), 30-day readmission (P = .28), 30-day mortality (P = .60), and 5-year survival (89.4% vs 81.6%, P = .20) when compared with the open group.In this national analysis, minimally invasive thymectomy was associated with shorter length of stay and was not associated with increased margin positivity, perioperative mortality, 30-day readmission rate, or reduced overall survival when compared with open thymectomy.
View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.11.114
View details for PubMedID 32245668