Exploring RATS for lung cancer V1
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Exploring Robotic Assisted Thoracic Surgery (RATS) for lung cancer: Does RATS result in improved functional outcomes compared to thoracotomy and how do patients appraise the experience of undergoing RATS?
IRAS ID
216106
Contact name
Samantha Harrison
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Teesside University
Duration of Study in the UK
2 years, 0 months, 0 days
Research summary
Surgery to remove a mass in the lungs can be performed using an open technique (thoracotomy) or closed techniques which means surgery is performed via small holes in the chest (Video Assisted Thoracic Surgery (VATS)). Robotic surgery has made performing closed surgery easier, however currently it is not known if robotic surgery leads to better health outcomes after surgery when compared to an open technique. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare exercise capacity, health-related quality of life and physical activity in patients who have undergone robotic surgery to those who have undergone a thoracotomy. We will also ask patients about their experience of undergoing robotic surgery.
Eighty individuals with lung cancer who are referred for surgery via a thoracotomy or robotic surgery will perform a walking exercise (The Incremental Shuttle Walk Test (ISWT)) test and complete two questionnaires (the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C30) and the EORTC Lung Cancer module (EORTC QLQ LC13)) at 4 time-points: before surgery (at the routine pre-operative assessment), 3-6 days after surgery (before or after discharge from hospital), 4-6 weeks after surgery (at the routine post-operative assessment) and 3 months after surgery. Patients will also wear an activity monitor immediately post-surgery until 1-week post-discharge. In-depth interviews will be conducted with up to 15 patients who underwent robotic surgery to explore the manner in which patients understand and make meaning of their experience of robotic surgery.
We will look at differences in the change in the ISWT, EORTC QLQ C30, EORTC QLQ LC13, steps and activity counts between the two groups (thoracotomy V robotic surgery). The interviews will be analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis which aims to understand the manner in which patients ascribe meaning to an experience.
REC name
North East - Tyne & Wear South Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
17/NE/0043
Date of REC Opinion
26 Apr 2017
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion