National Multicenter Study on the Comparison of Robotic and Open Thymectomy for Thymic Neoplasms in Myasthenic Patients: Surgical, Neurological and Oncological Outcomes.

Simple Summary: Extended thymectomy is the gold standard in the treatment of patients with thymic neoplasm and affected by myasthenia gravis. For a long time, the traditional approach has been sternotomy, though the application of minimally invasive techniques has spread in recent decades. Several authors have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of minimally invasive thymectomy. This multicenter study aims to compare the outcomes of robotic and open thymectomy in myasthenic patients affected by thymic tumors. Short-term and long-term results were presented, showing how the robotic approach can be considered comparable to open surgery in terms of oncological radicality and the improvement of myasthenic symptomatology, with associated faster recovery. Thymectomy is the gold standard in the treatment of thymic neoplasm and plays a key role in the therapeutic path of myasthenia gravis. For years, sternotomy has been the traditional approach for removing anterior mediastinal lesions, although the robotic thymectomy is now widely performed. The literature is still lacking in papers comparing the two approaches and evaluating long-term oncological and neurological outcomes. This study aims to analyze the postoperative results of open and robotic thymectomy for thymic neoplasms in myasthenic patients. Surgical, oncological and neurological data of myasthenic patients affected by thymic neoplasms and surgically treated with extended thymectomy, both with the open and the robotic approach, in six Italian Thoracic Centers between 2011 and 2021 were evaluated. A total of 213 patients were enrolled in the study: 110 (51.6%) were treated with the open approach, and 103 (48.4%) were treated with robotic surgery. The open surgery, compared with the robotic, presented a shorter operating time (p < 0.001), a higher number of postoperative complications (p = 0.038) and longer postoperative hospitalization (p = 0.006). No other differences were observed in terms of surgical, oncological or neurological outcomes. The robotic approach can be considered safe and feasible, comparable to the open technique, in terms of surgical, oncological and neurological outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]