Population-based studies comparing long-term survival after minimally invasive and open surgery for lung cancer are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare long-term survival rates between minimally invasive [video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS)] and open surgery for lung cancer in an unselected nationwide setting.

Patients undergoing minimally invasive (n = 710) or open (n = 2814) lung resection for lung cancer between 2004 and 2014 were identified from nationwide complete registries in Finland. Propensity score matching resulted in groups of 632 patients who had VATS and 632 who had a thoracotomy. The primary outcome was the 1-year survival rate. Secondary outcomes were 30-day, 90-day and 5-year survival rates and the length of surgical admission. Cox models were adjusted for sex, age, comorbidity, centre size, year of surgery, histological diagnosis, stage and adjuvant therapy.

In the propensity-matched cohort, the 1-year survival rate was 90.8% [confidence interval (CI) 88.3–92.8%] after VATS and 87.1% (CI 84.3–89.6%) after open surgery. The 5-year survival rate in the propensity-matched cohort was 59.6% (CI 54.9–63.9%) after VATS and 53.3% (CI 48.6–57.7%) after open surgery. The 30-day mortality rates showed no differences between approaches, but the 90-day mortality rate was better after VATS when adjusted for patient-, tumour- and operation-specific features (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% CI 0.30–0.92; P = 0.024).

According to this population-based nationwide study from Finland, minimally invasive surgery for lung cancer is associated with improved long- and short-term survival rates, supporting the use of VATS as a primary surgical method for treating lung cancer. Due to the complexity of confounding factors in this study, one should, however, interpret the results critically. Additional studies are needed.