Safety and feasibility of a modularized procedure for trans-subxiphoid robotic extended thymectomy

Background The purpose of this study was to introduce an eight-step modularized procedure (M-RET) for trans-subxiphoid robotic extended thymectomy for patients with myasthenia gravis (MG). Its safety and feasibility were further verified in this study. Materials and methods This retrospective study included 87 consecutive MG patients who underwent trans-subxiphoid robotic extended thymectomy at our institution between September 2016 and August 2021. According to different resection models, patients were divided into two groups: traditional trans-subxiphoid robotic extended thymectomy group (T-RET group) and eight-step modularized technique group (M-RET group). Baseline demographic characteristics and operation-related parameters were collected and compared between the two groups. Results There were 41 (47.1%) patients in the M-RET group and 46 (52.9%) patients in the T-RET group. The M-RET group resected a greater amount of mediastinal adipose tissues and required more dissection time (median and interquartile range: 135.0, 125.0 to 164.0 v. 120.0, 105.0 to 153.8, P=0.006) compared with the T-RET group. There were no statistically significant differences in terms of the intraoperative blood loss, duration of chest drainage, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications between the two groups. There was no mortality or conversion in each of the two groups and all patients recovered well upon discharge. Conclusion The eight-step modularized technique of trans-subxiphoid robotic extended thymectomy was verified to be a safe, effective, radical procedure, which offers unique superiority over ectopic thymic tissue resection. [GRAPHICS] .

Automated summary

This study introduced an eight-step modularized procedure (M-RET) for trans-subxiphoid robotic extended thymectomy in MG patients and verified its safety and feasibility. The M-RET group showed advantages in resecting mediastinal adipose tissues and requiring more dissection time compared to the traditional group, but there were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, duration of chest drainage, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications between the two groups.