目的 总结达芬奇机器人手术系统在胸外科的应用体验。 方法 回顾性分析 2016 年 1～11 月我院胸外科行肺叶切除和纵隔肿瘤切除 33 例患者的临床资料，其中男 24 例、女 9 例，年龄 51.3（22～76）岁。肺叶切除 18 例，肺楔形切除+肺段切除 11 例，纵隔肿瘤切除 4 例。分别对患者手术时间、淋巴结清扫数、中转开胸数、严重并发症（包括特发性急性肺损伤、呼吸衰竭、支气管胸膜瘘）、术中死亡人数等指标进行数据处理分析。 结果 33 例患者肺叶切除 18 例，术后病理证实为恶性肿瘤 9 例，肺结核 5 例，支气管扩张症 4 例；肺楔形切除+肺段切除 11 例，术后病理证实为结核球 8 例，良性结节 3 例。肺部疾病手术时间 90～210（130.7±50.6）min，淋巴结清扫 6～28（18.0±12.2）枚，纵隔肿瘤手术时间 60～90（78.3±32.9）min。所有患者均顺利完成手术，无严重并发症（特发性急性肺损伤、呼吸衰竭、支气管胸膜瘘），无中转开胸。 结论 达芬奇 Si 系统使微创技术有了新的生命力，为微创手术技术的进一步发展提供了可能。
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) and video assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 9, 2016), Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and CBM databases to collect clinical studies about RATS vs. VATS for patients with NSCLC from inception to October 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 14 cohort studies involving 19 921 patients were included; among them, 4 322 cases were in the RATS group, and 15 599 were in the VATS group. The results of meta-analysis showed that the operation time (MD=22.90, 95%CI 9.97 to 35.84, P<0.000 5) was longer in the RATS group than the VATS group. However, the conversion rate (OR=0.72, 95%CI 0.44 to 1.18, P=0.20), the incidence of postoperative complications (OR=1.06, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.17, P=0.28), intraoperative blood loss (MD=2.75, 95%CI –8.39 to 13.89, P=0.63), postoperative hospitalization time (MD=–0.00, 95%CI –0.02 to 0.02, P=0.99) and in-hospital mortality rate (OR=0.60, 95%CI 0.35 to 1.05, P=0.07) were not significant differences between both groups.ConclusionThe current meta-analysis indicates that the efficacy and safety of RATS and VATS for NSCLC is equivalence, however the operation time for RATS is longer. Due to the limited quantity and quality of inclued studies, the above conclusions still need to be verified by more high quality studies.