Thoracoscopic lobectomy has become the preferred approach for surgical management of early stage lung cancer, but the potential higher operative costs limit its widespread use. Theoretically, higher direct costs may be significantly counterbalanced by lower indirect costs, resulting in lower overall costs for thoracoscopic than for open lobectomy. To support this hypothesis, we reviewed the literature until May 2020, analyzing all papers comparing the cost of thoracoscopic versus open lobectomy.A total of 20 studies provided the most applicable evidence to evaluate this issue. In all the studies apart from one, thoracoscopic lobectomy was associated with higher operative costs due to the increased use of disposable instruments, and prolonged operative time. By contrast, in 17 studies the increased operative costs were significantly offset by indirect costs which were lower in thoracoscopic than in open lobectomy due to fewer postoperative complications, faster recovery, and lower readmission rates. It translated into lower overall costs for thoracoscopic than for open lobectomy in 10 studies, similar costs in seven, and higher in three, despite the lower hospitalization costs. The low bed fees and high prices of disposable instruments in these three studies may explain the discordance. The careful use of disposable instruments, and the minimizing hospitalization costs can reduce the total costs of thoracoscopic lobectomy to levels similar or to below those of open lobectomy. The worry that video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy (VATSL) might be associated with an increased overal cost is thus not warranted, and should not be used as an excuse against the use of VATS in surgery for early stage lung cancers.