Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2022 Feb 2;17(2):e0261767.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261767. eCollection 2022.

RAVAL trial: Protocol of an international, multi-centered, blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing robotic-assisted versus video-assisted lobectomy for early-stage lung cancer

Yogita S Patel  1 , Waël C Hanna  1 , Christine Fahim  1 , Yaron Shargall  1 , Thomas K Waddell  2 , Kazuhiro Yasufuku  2 , Tiago N Machuca  3 , Mauricio Pipkin  3 , Jean-Marc Baste  4 , Feng Xie  5 , Andrea Shiwcharan  6 , Gary Foster  5 , Lehana Thabane  5
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

RAVAL trial: Protocol of an international, multi-centered, blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing robotic-assisted versus video-assisted lobectomy for early-stage lung cancer

Yogita S Patel et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: Retrospective data demonstrates that robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery provides many benefits, such as decreased postoperative pain, lower mortality, shorter length of stay, shorter chest tube duration, and reductions in the incidence of common postoperative pulmonary complications, when compared to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. Despite the potential benefits of robotic surgery, there are two major barriers against its widespread adoption in thoracic surgery: lack of high-quality prospective data, and the perceived higher cost of it. Therefore, in the face of these barriers, a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing robotic- to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is needed. The RAVAL trial is a two-phase, international, multi-centered, blinded, parallel, randomized controlled trial that is comparing robotic- to video-assisted lobectomy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer that has been enrolling patients since 2016.

Methods: The RAVAL trial will be conducted in two phases: Phase A will enroll 186 early-stage non-small cell lung cancer patients who are candidates for minimally invasive pulmonary lobectomy; while Phase B will continue to recruit until 592 patients are enrolled. After consent, participants will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either robotic- or video-assisted lobectomy, and blinded to the type of surgery they are allocated to. Health-related quality of life questionnaires will be administered at baseline, postoperative day 1, weeks 3, 7, 12, months 6, 12, 18, 24, and years 3, 4, 5. The primary objective of the RAVAL trial is to determine the difference in patient-reported health-related quality of life outcomes between the robotic- and video-assisted lobectomy groups at 12 weeks. Secondary objectives include determining the differences in cost-effectiveness, and in the 5-year survival data between the two arms. The results of the primary objective will be reported once Phase A has completed accrual and the 12-month follow-ups are completed. The results of the secondary objectives will be reported once Phase B has completed accrual and the 5-year follow-ups are completed.

Discussion: If successfully completed, the RAVAL Trial will have studied patient-reported outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and survival of robotic- versus video-assisted lobectomy in a prospective, randomized, blinded fashion in an international setting.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02617186. Registered 22-September-2015. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02617186.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. CONSORT diagram of trial design.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Schedule of assessments and evaluations.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Veronesi G. Robotic thoracic surgery: technical considerations and learning curve for pulmonary resection. Thoracic Surgery Clinics of NA. 2014;24(2):135–141. doi: 10.1016/j.thorsurg.2014.02.009 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nasir BS, Bryant AS, Minnich DJ, Wei B, Cerfolio RJ. Performing Robotic Lobectomy and Segmentectomy: Cost, Profitability, and Outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98(1):203–209. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.02.051 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Park BJ, Melfi F, Mussi A, et al.. Robotic lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): long-term oncologic results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;143(2):383–389. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.10.055 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wei B D ’Amico TA. Thoracoscopic versus robotic approaches: advantages and disadvantages. Thoracic Surgery Clinics of NA. 2014;24(2):177–188. doi: 10.1016/j.thorsurg.2014.02.001 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Louie BE, Farivar AS, Aye RW, Vallières E. Early Experience with Robotic Lung Resection Results in Similar Operative Outcomes and Morbidity When Compared With Matched Video- Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery Cases. ATS. 2012;93(5):1598–1605. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.01.067 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data