First experience with robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagolymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer

Does Thoracic Duct Ligation at the Time of Esophagectomy Impact Long-Term Survival? An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

Background: Thoracic duct ligation (TDL) during esophagectomy has been proposed to reduce the risk of postoperative chylothorax. Because of its role in immunoregulation, some authors argued that it had an unfavorable TDL effect on survival. The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of TDL on overall survival (OS). Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through December 2023. The primary outcome was 5-year OS. The restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD), hazard ratios (HRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as pooled effect size measures. The GRADE methodology was used to summarize the certainty of the evidence. Results: Five studies (3291 patients) were included. TDL was reported in 54% patients. The patients' age ranged from 49 to 69, 76% were males, and BMI ranged from 18 to 26. At the 5-year follow-up, the combined effect from the multivariate meta-analysis is -3.5 months (95% CI -6.1, -0.8) indicating that patients undergoing TDL lived 3.5 months less compared to those without TDL. TDL was associated with a significantly higher hazard for mortality at 12 months (HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.38-1.73), 24 months (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.12-1.35), and 28 months (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28). TDL and noTDL seem comparable in terms of the postoperative risk for chylothorax (RR = 0.66; p = 0.35). Conclusions: In this study, concurrent TDL was associated with reduced 5-year OS after esophagectomy. This may suggest the need of a rigorous follow-up within the first two years of follow-up.

[Evidence for Minimal Invasive Oesophageal Resection]

In the course of the last 20 years, minimally invasive therapy has become much more important in all areas. In particular, surgical procedures have been established in oncological surgery, even without generating the necessary evidence to assure that the quality is equal to that achieved with open procedures. For this purpose, it has only been in recent years that appropriate randomised controlled studies followed by meta-analyses have been carried out. In this article, we summarise the evidence for minimally invasive resection of the oesophagus and review current literature for each procedure.

Long-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus minimally invasive esophagectomy in patients with thoracic esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Recently, robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has gained popularity worldwide. Some studies have compared the long-term results of RAMIE and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). However, there are no reports on the long-term outcomes of RAMIE in Japan. This study compared the long-term outcomes of RAMIE and MIE.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 86 patients with thoracic esophageal cancer who underwent RAMIE or MIE at our hospital from June 2010 to December 2016. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed, incorporating co-variables such as confounders or risk factors derived from the literature and clinical practice. These variables included age, sex, body mass index, alcohol consumption, smoking history, American Society of Anesthesiologists stage, comorbidities, tumor location, histology, clinical TNM stage, and preoperative therapy. The primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints were 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence rates.

RESULTS

Before PSM, the RAMIE group had a longer operation time (min) than the MIE group (P = 0.019). RAMIE also exhibited significantly lower blood loss volume (mL) (P < 0.001) and fewer three-field lymph node dissections (P = 0.028). Postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo: CD ≥ 2) were significantly lower in the RAMIE group (P = 0.04), and postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter than the MIE group (P < 0.001). After PSM, the RAMIE and MIE groups consisted of 26 patients each. Blood loss volume was significantly smaller (P = 0.012), postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 2) were significantly lower (P = 0.021), and postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter (P < 0.001) in the RAMIE group than those in the MIE group. The median observation period was 63 months. The 5-year OS rates were 73.1% and 80.8% in the RAMIE and MIE groups, respectively (P = 0.360); the 5-year DFS rates were 76.9% and 76.9% in the RAMIE and MIE groups, respectively (P = 0.749). Six of 26 patients (23.1%) in each group experienced recurrence, with a median recurrence period of 41.5 months in the RAMIE group and 22.5 months in the MIE group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with MIE, RAMIE led to no differences in long-term results, suggesting that RAMIE is a comparable technique.

Robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy

Background

Esophagectomy is the gold standard treatment for resectable esophageal cancer; however, there is insufficient evidence to indicate potential advantages over standard minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in treating thoracic esophageal cancer. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) bridges the gap between open and minimally invasive surgery. In this single-center retrospective review, we compare the clinical outcomes of EC patients treated with MIE and RAMIE.

Method

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent surgery at Qilu Hospital between August 2020 and August 2022, including 159 patients who underwent MIE and 35 patients who received RAMIE. The intraoperative, postoperative, and preoperative patient characteristics in both groups were evaluated.

Results

Except for height, the MIE and RAMIE groups showed no significant differences in preoperative features (P>0.05). Further, there were no significant differences in intraoperative indices, including TNM stage of the resected tumor, tumor tissue type, or ASA score, between the two groups. However, statistically significant differences were found in some factors; the RAMIE group had a shorter operative time, less intraoperative bleeding, and more lymph nodes removed compared to the MIE group. Patients in the RAMIE group reported less discomfort and greater chest drainage on the first postoperative day than patients in the MIE group; however, there were no differences in other features between the two datasets.

Conclusion

By comparing the clinical characteristics and outcomes of RAMIE with MIE, this study verified the feasibility and safety of RAMIE for esophageal cancer. Overall, RAMIE resulted in more complete lymph node clearance, shorter operating time, reduced surgical hemorrhage, reduced postoperative discomfort, and chest drainage alleviation in patients. To investigate the function of RAMIE in esophageal cancer, we propose undertaking a future clinical trial with long-term follow-up to analyze tumor clearance, recurrence, and survival after RAMIE.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted and video-assisted esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is a recently developed technique for the treatment of resectable esophageal cancer. The present study compares the outcomes of RAMIE and video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (VATE).

METHOD

Patients undergoing minimally invasive esophageal surgery between December 2020 and September 2022 were included in the study, while those undergoing conventional surgery were excluded. The patients were divided into two groups, as those undergoing RAMIE (Group 1) and those undergoing VATE (Group 2). The demographic and clinical characteristics, intraoperative parameters, pathological data, and postoperative parameters of the groups were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 28 patients were included in the study, with 13 patients in Group 1 and 15 patients in Group 2. The gender distribution was similar (P = 0.488), and the mean age was 64.7 and 59.0 years in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.068). The majority of the sample was in the ASA2 category (46.2% vs. 66.7%, P = 0.341); Ca19.9 levels were higher in Group 1 than in Group 2 (25.7 vs. 13.7, P = 0.027); preoperative Hb was lower in Group 1 than in Group 2 (10.9 g/dL vs. 12.2 g/dL, P = 0.043); the most commonly performed surgery was the McKeown procedure (69.2% vs. 66.7%, P = 0.492); an intraoperative feeding jejunostomy was placed only in Group 2; the operation time was similar between the groups (338.5 min vs. 340 min, P = 0.916); and the distribution of tumor localizations was similar between the groups (P = 0.407). In terms of tumor histology, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) was the most common tumor type in the two groups (84.6% vs. 80%, P = 0.636); the tumor diameter was similar between the groups (14.9 vs. 18.1, P = 0.652); the number of removed lymph nodes was similar between the groups (24.9 vs. 22.5, P = 0.419); and the number of metastatic lymph nodes was higher in Group 2 (0.08 vs. 1.07, P = 0.27). One patient in Group 2 underwent repeat surgery due to suspected ischemic anastomosis; the distribution of postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system was similar in the two groups (P = 0.650); there was no early mortality within the first 30 days in either group; one patient in Group 2 was re-admitted within 90 days of discharge with decreased oral intake; the length of hospital stay was shorter in Group 1 (9 days vs. 16.5 days, P = 0.006); and the patients in Group 2 more often received neoadjuvant therapy in proportion to the disease stage (15.4% vs. 60%, P = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

Robotic procedures can be safely performed in esophageal cancers with complication rates and oncological radicality similar to those of other minimally invasive techniques.

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy Between Da Vinci Robot-Assisted Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy and McKeown Esophagectomy for Middle and Lower Thoracic Esophageal Cancer: A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

We compared the perioperative efficacy and safety of da Vinci robot-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and McKeown esophagectomy for middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective case-control study method was used. A total of 181 patients with esophageal cancer admitted to three medical centers in China from February 2018 to October 2022 were collected and divided into two groups according to surgical method: da Vinci robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (Ivor Lewis group) and RATS McKeown esophagectomy (McKeown group), respectively. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used to reduce selection bias caused by confounding factors. The perioperative indicators of the two groups were compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference in age and tumor location between the Ivor Lewis group and the McKeown group. After PSM, the above factors were no longer statistically significant. There were 80 patients in each group after PSM. In terms of operative time (P = 0.005), anastomotic leakage (P = 0.029), and pulmonary infection (P = 0.035), the Ivor Lewis group has significant advantages; in terms of the number of lymph nodes dissected around the recurrent laryngeal nerve (P = 0.010), the McKeown group has significant advantages.

CONCLUSION

Both RATS Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and McKeown esophagectomy are safe and effective for treatment of middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer. Ivor Lewis has advantages in operative time, anastomotic leakage, and pulmonary infection, while McKeown has advantage in lymph node dissection around the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

Reducing the Risks of Esophagectomies: A Retrospective Comparison of Hybrid versus Full-Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE) Approaches

This retrospective analysis aimed to assess and compare the short-term perioperative outcomes and morbidity of hybrid and full-Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE) surgical techniques. A total of 168 robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy procedures performed at Muenster University Hospital were included in the study, with 63 cases in the hybrid group and 105 cases in the full-robotic group. Demographic factors, comorbidities, and tumor stages showed no significant differences between the two groups. However, the full-RAMIE technique demonstrated superiority in terms of overall operative time, postoperative pain levels, and patient morphine consumption. Additionally, the full-RAMIE group exhibited better perioperative outcomes, with significantly shorter ICU stays and fewer occurrences of pneumonias and severe complications. While there was a trend favoring the full-RAMIE technique in terms of severe postoperative complications and anastomotic insufficiencies, further research is required to establish it as the gold standard surgical technique for Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

Introducing robotic oesophagectomy into an Australian practice: an assessment of the early procedural outcomes and learning curve

BACKGROUND

Robotic oesophagectomy (RAMIO) is a novel procedure in Australia and New Zealand. We aimed to report the early operative and clinical outcomes achieved during the introduction of RAMIO into the practice of a single Australian surgeon and benchmark these against outcomes of patients receiving conventional minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) by the same surgeon.

METHODS

Data on all patients undergoing RAMIO, performed by a single high-volume Australian surgeon, were collected from a prospectively maintained database. Operative, clinical and surgical quality outcomes were benchmarked on a univariable basis against those of patients receiving MIO. Learning curves were computed using quadratic and linear regression of operating times on case-numbers and compared using Cox regression modelling.

RESULTS

290 patients (237 MIO, 53 RAMIO (47% Ivor-Lewis, 53% McKeon oesophagectomy)) were included. Compared with MIO, the median thoracic operating time was 20 min longer for RAMIO (P = 0.03). Following RAMIO, there was less blood loss (P < 0.01) and a shorter length of stay (P < 0.01).There were no differences in morbidity and quality of surgery following RAMIO compared with MIO. There were no deaths following RAMIO. Having progressed from MIO, the operating times for RAMIO improved after 22 cases compared with MIO (110 cases) (HR 0.70 (0.51-0.93), P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

With careful implementation, RAMIO may be safely performed within the Australian setting and is associated with a modest increase in procedure duration, but less blood loss and shorter length of stay compared with conventional MIO.

Deep learning-based recognition of key anatomical structures during robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy

OBJECTIVE

To develop a deep learning algorithm for anatomy recognition in thoracoscopic video frames from robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) procedures using deep learning.

BACKGROUND

RAMIE is a complex operation with substantial perioperative morbidity and a considerable learning curve. Automatic anatomy recognition may improve surgical orientation and recognition of anatomical structures and might contribute to reducing morbidity or learning curves. Studies regarding anatomy recognition in complex surgical procedures are currently lacking.

METHODS

Eighty-three videos of consecutive RAMIE procedures between 2018 and 2022 were retrospectively collected at University Medical Center Utrecht. A surgical PhD candidate and an expert surgeon annotated the azygos vein and vena cava, aorta, and right lung on 1050 thoracoscopic frames. 850 frames were used for training of a convolutional neural network (CNN) to segment the anatomical structures. The remaining 200 frames of the dataset were used for testing the CNN. The Dice and 95% Hausdorff distance (95HD) were calculated to assess algorithm accuracy.

RESULTS

The median Dice of the algorithm was 0.79 (IQR = 0.20) for segmentation of the azygos vein and/or vena cava. A median Dice coefficient of 0.74 (IQR = 0.86) and 0.89 (IQR = 0.30) were obtained for segmentation of the aorta and lung, respectively. Inference time was 0.026 s (39 Hz). The prediction of the deep learning algorithm was compared with the expert surgeon annotations, showing an accuracy measured in median Dice of 0.70 (IQR = 0.19), 0.88 (IQR = 0.07), and 0.90 (0.10) for the vena cava and/or azygos vein, aorta, and lung, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that deep learning-based semantic segmentation has potential for anatomy recognition in RAMIE video frames. The inference time of the algorithm facilitated real-time anatomy recognition. Clinical applicability should be assessed in prospective clinical studies.

Robotic Esophagectomy Trends and Early Surgical Outcomes: The US Experience

BACKGROUND

Recent esophagectomy trends were evaluated to describe the shift in surgical approach and outcomes using The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database.

METHODS

All patients who underwent an esophagectomy with gastric conduit from 2015 to 2019 were identified and analyzed according to original intended approach. After performing volume trend analysis of patients, operative outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 10,607 patients, esophagectomy was open in 5763 (54.3%), minimally invasive (MIE) in 3524 (33.2%), and robotic (RAMIE) in 1320 (12.4%). Within 5 years, MIE and RAMIE combined rose to majority approach (open from 58% to 42% of annual volume). While MIE and RAMIE were associated with higher rates of anastomotic leak, loss of conduit, pulmonary embolus, and reoperation, R0 resection and harvested number of lymph nodes exceeded those in open approaches. Operative mortality did not differ by approach (3.21% open vs 2.72% MIE vs 2.50% RAMIE; P = .2329). On multivariable analysis, RAMIE was independently associated with higher rate of anastomotic leak compared to open (adjusted odds ratio 1.53, 95% CI 1.14-2.04), while both MIE and RAMIE had lower mean length of stay. Propensity matching of 1320 pairs found a higher risk of anastomotic leak requiring surgery for RAMIE compared with MIE (adjusted odds ratio 1.39, 95% CI 1.01-1.92).

CONCLUSIONS

In less than a decade, the dominant surgical approach in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database has become minimally invasive (RAMIE and MIE). While anastomotic leak and reoperation, more common in RAMIE, require a technical solution, these complications have not raised operative mortality. Further studies are needed to address long-term results and oncologic outcome.

Intrathoracic Robotic-Sewn Anastomosis During Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy for Cancer: Back to Basics?

BACKGROUND

To assess the feasibility, clinical utility, and safety of intrathoracic robotic-sewn esophageal anastomosis (IrEA) during Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma of the lower third of the esophagus, or cancer at the gastro-esophageal junction type I (Siewert classification).

METHODS

A protocol for completely robotic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (CrIE) and intrathoracic robotic-sewn anastomosis (IrEA) was established at the authors' institutions from January 2015 through December 2019. Overall surgery-related postoperative complications were analyzed. Overall survival and disease-free survival analysis were performed using standard methods.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 40 patients. Median operative time was 320 min (sd 62, range 235-500 min), and conversion to open rate was 0%. Anastomotic leak rate was 10%. The mean number of examined lymph nodes (ELN) was 19 (IQR 11-29), and the mean number of positive lymph nodes (PLN) was 3 (IQR 0-5). Short- and long-term surgical and oncological outcomes were comparable at a medium follow-up of 37 months. The median overall survival was 48 months while the mean disease-free survival was 29 months.

CONCLUSION

This pilot series, in which an intrathoracic robotic-sewn anastomosis (IrEA) was performed during CrIE, demonstrated the safety and feasibility of this approach. Compared to the current standard of care at a high-volume center, IrEA was associated with better postoperative surgical outcomes and similar oncological outcomes to those reported worldwide today. These results call for further validation in a prospective and controlled setting to be fully incorporated into clinical practice.

The Implementation of Minimally Invasive Surgery in the Treatment of Esophageal Cancer: A Step Toward Better Outcomes?

Esophagectomy is considered the cornerstone of the radical treatment of esophageal cancer. In the past decades, minimally invasive techniques including robot-assisted approaches have become popular. The aim of minimally invasive surgery is to reduce the surgical trauma, resulting in faster recovery, reduction in complications, and better quality of life after surgery. Secondly, a more precise dissection may lead to better oncological outcomes. As such, minimally invasive esophagectomy is now seen by many as the standard surgical approach. However, evidence supporting this viewpoint is limited. This narrative review summarizes recent prospectively designed studies on minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Outcomes of Minimally Invasive and Robot-Assisted Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

Simple Summary

This is an invited review for the special edition, “Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cancer: Indications and Outcomes.” Indications to perform minimally invasive techniques for esophagectomy rather than the classic open technique do not exist. This review outlines the current research by comparing outcomes among minimally invasive esophagectomy, robot-assisted esophagectomy, and open esophagectomy. After determining the benefits of each technique in terms of each outcome, the discussion focuses on how surgeons may use the presented information to determine which approach is most appropriate. We hope this study provides a comprehensive review of the current state of the literature regarding minimally invasive esophagectomy, as well as a guide for surgeons who treat patients with esophageal cancer.

Abstract

With the evolution of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE), questions remain regarding the benefits and indications of these methods. Given that set indications do not exist, this article aims first to review the reported outcomes of MIE, RAMIE, and open esophagectomy. Then, considerations based on the reported outcomes are discussed to guide surgeons in selecting the best approach. MIE and RAMIE offer the potential to improve outcomes for esophagectomy patients; however, surgeon experience as well as individual patient factors play important roles when deciding upon the surgical approach.

Robotic-Assisted Esophagectomy Leads to Significant Reduction in Postoperative Acute Pain: A Retrospective Clinical Trial

Background

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) shows promising results regarding postoperative complications in patients with esophageal cancer. To date, no data are available regarding postoperative analgesic consumption. The aim of this work is to evaluate analgesic consumption after esophagectomy.

Methods

A total of 274 Ivor Lewis esophageal resections performed sequentially from January 2012 to December 2020 were evaluated. RAMIE cases (n = 51) were compared with the hybrid technique (laparoscopic abdominal phase followed by open thoracotomy, n = 59) and open abdominothoracic esophagectomy (OTE) (n = 164). Data were collected retrospectively. The primary endpoint was the overall postoperative morphine consumption, which represents a reliable indirect measurement of pain. Pain levels recorded on the first, third, and fifth postoperative days were assessed as secondary endpoints.

Results

A total of 274 patients were included. The postoperative opioid consumption rate for patients who underwent RAMIE (quartiles: 0.14, 0.23, 0.36 mg morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/kg body weight (bw)/day) was significantly lower than in the open group (0.19, 0.33, 0.58 mg MME/kg bw/day, p = 0.016). The overall postoperative opioid consumption for patients who underwent RAMIE was significantly lower (2.45, 3.63, 7.20 mg MME/kg bw/day; morphine milligram equivalents per kilogram body weight) compared with the open (4.85, 8.59, 14.63 MME/kg bw/day, p < 0.0001) and hybrid (4.13, 6.84, 11.36 MME/kg bw/day, p = 0.008) groups. Patients who underwent RAMIE reported lower pain scores compared with the open group on the fifth postoperative day, both at rest (p = 0.004) and while performing activities (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

This study shows that patients who underwent RAMIE experienced similar postoperative pain while requiring significantly lower amounts of opioids compared with patients who underwent open and hybrid surgery. Further studies are required to verify the results.

Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) constitutes a newly developed surgical technique for the treatment of resectable esophageal cancer, aiming to further improve the high morbidity and mortality associated with open esophagectomy. We performed a systematic review of the literature and compared the outcomes of RAMIE and open esophagectomy. RAMIE is a safe and feasible procedure, resulting in decreased cardiopulmonary morbidity, wound infections, blood loss, and hospital stays compared to open esophagectomy.

Abstract

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) was introduced as a further development of the conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy, aiming to further improve the high morbidity and mortality associated with open esophagectomy. We aimed to compare the outcomes between RAMIE and open esophagectomy, which remains a popular approach for resectable esophageal cancer. Ten studies meeting our inclusion criteria were identified, including five retrospective cohort, four prospective cohort, and one randomized controlled trial. RAMIE was associated with significantly lower rates of overall pulmonary complications (odds ratio (OR): 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI): [0.26, 0.56]), pneumonia (OR: 0.39, 95% CI: [0.26, 0.57]), atrial fibrillation (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: [0.29, 0.98]), and wound infections (OR: 0.20, 95% CI: [0.07, 0.57]) and resulted in less blood loss (weighted mean difference (WMD): −187.08 mL, 95% CI: [−283.81, −90.35]) and shorter hospital stays (WMD: −9.22 days, 95% CI: [−14.39, −4.06]) but longer operative times (WMD: 69.45 min, 95% CI: [34.39, 104.42]). No other statistically significant difference was observed regarding surgical and short-term oncological outcomes. Similar findings were observed when comparing totally robotic procedures only to OE. RAMIE is a safe and feasible procedure, resulting in decreased cardiopulmonary morbidity, wound infections, blood loss, and shorter hospital stays compared to open esophagectomy.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) vs. hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: propensity score matched short-term outcome analysis of a European high-volume center

INTRODUCTION

Transthoracic esophagectomy is a highly complex and sophisticated procedure with high morbidity rates and a significant mortality. Surgical access has consistently become less invasive, transitioning from open esophagectomy to hybrid esophagectomy (HE) then to totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), and most recently to robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE), with each step demonstrating improved patient outcomes. Aim of this study with more than 600 patients is to complete a propensity-score matched comparison of postoperative short-term outcomes after highly standardized RAMIE vs. HE in a European high volume center.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Six hundred and eleven patients that underwent transthoracic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between May 2016 and May 2021 were included in the study. In January 2019, we implemented an updated robotic standardized anastomotic technique using a circular stapler and ICG (indocyanine green) for RAMIE cases. Data were retrospectively analyzed from a prospectively maintained IRB-approved database. Outcomes of patients undergoing standardized RAMIE from January 2019 to May 2021 were compared to our overall cohort from May 2016-April 2021 (HE) after a propensity-score matching analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Six hundred and eleven patients were analyzed. 107 patients underwent RAMIE. Of these, a total of 76 patients underwent a robotic thoracic reconstruction using the updated standardized circular stapled anastomosis (RAMIE group). A total of 535 patients underwent HE (Hybrid group). Seventy patients were propensity-score matched in each group and analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics. RAMIE patients had a significantly shorter ICU stay (p = 0.0218). Significantly more patients had no postoperative complications (Clavien Dindo 0) in the RAMIE group [47.1% vs. 27.1% in the HE group (p = 0.0225)]. No difference was seen in lymph node yield and R0 resection rates. Anastomotic leakage rates when matched were 14.3% in the hybrid group vs. 4.3% in the RAMIE group (p = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis confirms the safety and feasibility of RAMIE and HE in a large cohort after propensity score matching. A regular postoperative course (Clavien-Dindo 0) and a shorter ICU stay were seen significantly more often after RAMIE compared to HE. Furthermore it shows that both procedures provide excellent short-term oncologic outcomes, regarding lymph node harvest and R0 resection rates. A randomized controlled trial comparing RAMIE and HE is still pending and will hopefully contribute to ongoing discussions.

Safe and Appropriate Minimally Invasive and Robotic Esophagectomy in a Community Cancer Center

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is a technically challenging procedure that been associated with better outcomes at high-volume tertiary care centers. Louisiana is one of the most impoverished states, and travel to a "destination center" is not an option for many patients. We hypothesize that patients can obtain excellent surgical outcomes following MIE in a comprehensive community cancer center.

METHODS

We identified all patients who underwent totally robotic MIE by a single surgeon at our center from July 2018 to November 2020. All cases were performed using totally robotic Ivor Lewis technique with intrathoracic isoperistaltic esophagogastrostomy. Incidence, demographics, treatment, and outcomes were compared before and after first 10 cases using Student's t-test.

RESULTS

We identified 21 patients: 16 male and 5 female. Mean age 65 (49-85). 19 patients underwent MIE for malignancy; 18 of these received neoadjuvant therapy. OR time decreased following the first 10 cases (502 vs. 408 minutes, P = 0.0127). Average lymph node harvest was 14 (4-23 nodes). Positive margin rate was 0%. Mean length of stay trended towards a decrease after the first 10 cases (11 vs. 9 days, P = NS). There were no leaks or strictures. Thirty-day readmission was five patients. Ninety-day mortality was 0%.

CONCLUSION

These outcomes rival those of high-volume referral centers and demonstrate that totally robotic MIE can be performed with excellent outcomes in community center. These data call into question the need for all patients to travel to "destination centers" to receive complex oncologic surgery.

Current status of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: what is the real benefit?

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal cancer has been performed increasingly frequently over the last few years. Robotic systems with articulated devices and tremor filtration allow surgeons to perform such procedures more meticulously than by hand. The feasibility of RAMIE has been demonstrated in several retrospective comparative studies, which showed similar short-term outcomes to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (cMIE). Considering the number of harvested lymph nodes, RAMIE may be superior to cMIE in terms of left upper mediastinal lymph node dissection. However, whether or not the addition of a robotic system to cMIE can help improve perioperative and oncological outcomes remains unclear. Given the lack of established evidence from randomized controlled trials, we must await the results of ongoing studies to reach any meaningful conclusions. Further advancements in robotic platforms, as well as the reduction in medical expenses, will be essential to demonstrate the real benefit of RAMIE.

Technique of robotic esophagectomy

Robotic surgery continues to grow in thoracic surgery, and currently plays an evolving role in esophagectomy. Robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has continued to expand, with many institutions adapting the technique. As the overall experience continues to grow, new data is emerging in its support. We present our approach to this operation.

Transhiatal robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: unclear benefits compared to traditional transhiatal esophagectomy

Esophagectomy is a high-risk operation, regardless of technique. Minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy could reduce length of stay and pulmonary complications compared to traditional open approaches, but the benefits of minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy are unclear. We performed a retrospective review of prospectively gathered data for open transhiatal esophagectomies (THEs) and transhiatal robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomies (TH-RAMIEs) performed at a high-volume academic center between 2013 and 2017. Multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for outcomes. 465 patients met inclusion criteria (378 THE and 87 TH-RAMIE). THE patients more likely had an ASA score of 3 + (89.1% vs 77.0%, p = 0.012), whereas TH-RAMIE patients more likely had a pathologic staging of 3+ (43.7% vs. 31.2%, p = 0.026). TH-RAMIE patients were less likely to receive epidurals (aOR 0.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03-0.14, p < 0.001), but epidural use itself was not associated with differences in outcomes. TH-RAMIE patients experienced higher rates of pulmonary complications (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.82, 95% CI 1.03-3.22, p = 0.040), particularly pulmonary embolus (aOR 5.20, 95% CI 1.30-20.82, p = 0.020). There were no statistically significant differences in lymph node harvest, unexpected ICU admission, length of stay, in-hospital mortality, or 30-day readmission or mortality rates. The TH-RAMIE approach had higher rates of pulmonary complications. There were no statistically significant advantages to the TH-RAMIE approach. Further investigation is needed to understand the benefits of a minimally invasive approach to the open transhiatal esophagectomy.

Robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy for gastrointestinal stromal tumor of the esophagus: A case report

Introduction

A gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) often arises in the stomach and small intestine, while esophageal GIST is rare. The first-choice treatment is surgical resection, but there is no standard technique. Herein, we describe our experience in the treatment of esophageal GIST and discuss the usefulness of robotic esophagectomy.

Presentation of case

The patient was a 60-year-old woman, who was diagnosed with a 30 mm GIST in the middle thoracic esophagus. We underwent robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position. The duration of the thoracoscopic part was 69 min and the total operation time was 319 min. Total blood loss was 135 ml. The patient's postoperative course was uneventful after surgery and the patient was discharged home in good condition on the 18th postoperative day.

Discussion

The prognosis of esophageal GIST was less favorable compared with gastric GIST, and due to the anatomical peculiarities of the esophagus, which surgical procedure should be performed is still under debate. Robotic surgery has several technological advantages as it provides a three-dimensional view, ten times magnification, tremor control, and ambidexterity. Therefore, Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) allows achieving for safe R0 resection of esophageal GIST.

Conclusion

RAMIE may be useful for esophageal GIST because it facilitates safe and minimally invasive surgery in a limited space of the thoracic cavity.

•

There is no standard technique due to the anatomical peculiarities of the esophagus.

•

We think McKeown's procedure in the prone position has some advantages from others.

•

Robot surgery has a three-dimensional view, tremor control, and ambidexterity.

•

RAMIE would be useful techniques in a limited space of the thoracic cavity.

Totally Robotic Esophagectomy

Totally robotic esophagectomy is performed using a robotic technique without additional thoracoscopy or laparoscopy. However, most robotic esophagectomies are currently performed in a hybrid form combining robotic and other endoscopic techniques. Laparoscopic stomach mobilization and thoracoscopic esophagogastric anastomosis are commonly used methods in robotic esophagectomy. In this paper, totally robotic esophagectomy without thoracoscopic or laparoscopic assistance is presented.

Robot-Assisted Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy with Total Mediastinal Lymphadenectomy: A Guide to a Systematic Approach Using the Concept of Fascial Plane Dissection

Recent case series and meta-analyses have suggested that robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) could be a useful alternative to video-assisted thoracic surgery esophagectomy. The advantages of RAMIE are a 3-dimensional view, 7 degrees of freedom, and tremor filtering, which enable more meticulous lymph node dissection with a lower incidence of complications. However, in radical esophagectomy, understanding the concepts of the fascia and compartment is crucial for successful and reliable dissection. The first RAMIE in Korea was performed by our team in July 2006, and since then, we have developed related techniques to achieve better short- and long-term outcomes. The key step in RAMIE for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is dissection of the upper mediastinum due to the difficulty of lymph node dissection and the high incidence of nodal metastasis in the area. Herein, we describe the technique of fascial plane dissection with esophageal suspension during RAMIE.

Robot-Assisted Versus Conventional Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Early Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial: the RAMIE Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative and long-term outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) and conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in the treatment for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

RAMIE has emerged as an alternative to traditional open or thoracoscopic approaches. Efficacy and safety of RAMIE and MIE in the surgical treatment for ESCC remains uncertain given the lack of high-level clinical evidence.

METHODS

The RAMIE trial was designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial that compare the efficacy and safety of RAMIE and MIE in the treatment of resectable ESCC. From August 2017 to December 2019, eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either RAMIE or MIE performed by experienced thoracic surgeons from six high-volume centers in China. Intent-to-treat analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Significantly shorter operation time was taken in RAMIE (203.8 vs. 244.9 mins, P<0.001). Compared to MIE, RAMIE showed improved efficiency of thoracic lymph node dissection in patients who received neoadjuvant therapy (15 vs. 12, P=0.016), as well as higher achievement rate of lymph node dissection along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) (79.5% vs. 67.6%, P=0.001). No difference was found in blood loss, conversion rate, and R0 resection. The 90-day mortality was 0.6% in each group. Overall complications were similar in RAMIE (48.6%) compared to MIE (41.8%) (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.92-1.46; P=0.196). Besides, the rate of major complications (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ III) was also comparable (12.2% vs. 10.2%, P=0.551). RAMIE showed similar incidences of pulmonary complications (13.8% vs. 14.7%; P=0.812), anastomotic leakage (12.2% vs. 11.3%; P=0.801) and vocal cord paralysis (32.6% vs. 27.1%, P=0.258) to MIE.

CONCLUSIONS

Early results demonstrate that both RAMIE and MIE are safe and feasible for the treatment of ESCC. RAMIE can achieve shorter operative duration as well as better lymph node dissection in patients who received neoadjuvant therapy. Long-term results are pending for further follow-up investigations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT03094351.

Robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, a review of the technique

Esophageal resection is a key component of the multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy is gaining widespread approval amongst few centers with promising early data. There is significant variability in the operative approach utilized by different centers and this review describes, step-by-step, the operative technique at a high-volume tertiary center. The cornerstone of management is individualized surgical approach, based on patient, tumor and technical factors. Although our approach is based on aforementioned factors, our preferred approach is an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and this review focuses on that. The procedure is broken down into three key parts, starting with an abdominal exploration and creation of the gastric conduit, placement of jejunostomy tube, moving to thoracic mobilization and creation of the side-side 6 cm stapled esophagogastric anastomosis with a final abdominal portion to assure proper positioning of the conduit and reducing redundancy. This approach is fully robotic and a side to side anastomosis facilitates the creation of a widely patent anastomosis therefore minimizing the risk of anastomotic leaks and strictures. Our experience with minimally invasive esophagectomy, as has been previously published, is associated with a 5.1% of anastomotic leak and 7.6% of anastomotic stricture. The robotic platform further optimizes this technique and helps us safely accomplish a side to side stapled anastomosis. Superior instrument dexterity in a restricted thoracic space is facilitated by intracorporeal suturing and robotic stapling. Thus, it obviates the need for a larger thoracotomy incision, which is typically needed for an EEA anastomosis, and that is traditionally associated with higher stricture rate.

Lower local recurrence rate after robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy than conventional thoracoscopic surgery for esophageal cancer

The oncological advantages of robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (RATE) over conventional thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) for thoracic esophageal cancer have yet to be verified. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed clinical data to compare the incidences of recurrence within the surgical field after RATE and TE as an indicator of local oncological control. Among 121 consecutive patients with thoracic esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancers for which thoracoscopic surgery was indicated, 51 were treated with RATE while 70 received TE. The number of lymph nodes dissected from the mediastinum, duration of the thoracic portion of the surgery, and morbidity due to postoperative complications did not differ between the two groups. However, the rate of overall local recurrence within the surgical field was significantly (P = 0.039) higher in the TE (9%) than the RATE (0%) group. Lymph node recurrence within the surgical field occurred in left recurrent nerve, left tracheobronchial, left main bronchus and thoracic paraaortic lymph nodes, which were all difficult to approach to dissect. The other two local failures occurred around the anastomotic site. This study indicates that using RATE enabled the incidence of recurrence within the surgical field to be reduced, though there were some limitations.

[Initial experience of robot-assisted minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy]

OBJECTIVE

To report our initial experience of robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy with stapled cervical esophagogastrostomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

There were 5 robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomies in patients with benign end-staged and malignant diseases of the esophagus for the period from October 2019 to February 2020.

RESULTS

No conversions and intraoperative complications were observed. Mean surgery time was 406±48 min, total intraoperative blood loss - 108±45 ml. Four patients had minor complications (wound infection, atelectasis, pneumothorax) that required conservative treatment. We have controlled anastomosis in 2-3 postoperative days with water-soluble contrast, none patient had an anastomotic leakage. Mean hospital-stay was 5 days. Complete (R0) resection was accomplished in all patients with malignant neoplasms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our first experience showed that robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy is a safe and feasible surgical option for esophageal diseases. Robot-assisted interventions require advanced endoscopic surgical experience.

[Evidence in minimally invasive oncological surgery of the esophagus]

BACKGROUND

Thoracoabdominal esophagectomy still plays a major role in the oncological treatment for esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive procedures were developed to reduce the high rate of postoperative morbidity and mortality without negatively affecting the oncological outcome.

OBJECTIVE

What evidence supports minimally invasive oncological surgery of the esophagus? Do patients benefit from minimally invasive esophagectomy compared to an open approach? Is the reduction of surgical access trauma specifically advantageous?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Review, evaluation and critical analysis of the international literature.

RESULTS

A reduction in postoperative morbidity by decreasing surgical trauma was confirmed by three prospective randomized clinical trials, while showing at least similar oncological outcomes. Diverse retrospective analyses and meta-analyses also came to the same result.

CONCLUSION

A minimization of surgical access trauma during thoracoabdominal esophagectomy reduces postoperative morbidity compared to conventional open surgery. Recent evidence suggests that oncological outcomes are not altered depending on the surgical approach.

State of the art in esophagectomy: robotic assistance in the abdominal phase

Over the years, robot-assisted esophagectomy gained popularity. The current literature focused mainly on robotic assistance in the thoracic phase, whereas the implementation of robotic assistance in the abdominal phase is lagging behind. Advantages of adding a robotic system to the abdominal phase include robotic stapling and the increased surgeon's independency. In terms of short-term outcomes and lymphadenectomy, robotic assistance is at least equal to laparoscopy. Yet high quality evidence to conclude on this topic remains scarce. This review focuses on the evidence of robotic assistance in the abdominal phase of esophagectomy.

Progress in Multimodal Treatment for Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Results of Multi-Institutional Trials Conducted in Japan

In Japan, the therapeutic strategies adopted for esophageal carcinoma are based on the results of multi-institutional trials conducted by the Japan Esophageal Oncology Group (JEOG), a subgroup of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG). Owing to the differences in the proportion of patients with squamous cell carcinoma among all patients with esophageal carcinoma, chemotherapeutic drugs available, and surgical procedures employed, the therapeutic strategies adopted in Asian countries, especially Japan, are often different from those in Western countries. The emphasis in respect of postoperative adjuvant therapy for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) shifted from postoperative radiotherapy in the 1980s to postoperative chemotherapy in the 1990s. In the 2000s, the optimal timing of administration of perioperative adjuvant chemotherapy returned from the postoperative adjuvant setting to the preoperative neoadjuvant setting. Recently, the JEOG commenced a three-arm randomized controlled trial of neoadjuvant therapies (cisplatin + 5-fluorouracil (CF) vs. CF + docetaxel (DCF) vs. CF + radiation therapy (41.4 Gy) (CRT)) for localized advanced ESCC, and patient recruitment has been completed. Salvage and conversion surgeries for ESCC have been developed in Japan, and the JEOG has conducted phase I/II trials to confirm the feasibility and safety of such aggressive surgeries. At present, the JEOG is conducting several trials for patients with resectable and unresectable ESCC, according to the tumor stage. Herein, we present a review of the JEOG trials conducted for advanced ESCC.

Robot-Assisted Esophagectomy After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation-Current Status and Future Prospects

Multimodality treatment with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery has become the standard of care for esophageal cancer. In the recent years, there has been a shift in focus of surgical approach from open esophagectomy to minimally invasive esophagectomy. Robot-assisted esophagectomy is being performed more often in centers across the world. However, there is limited data on role of robot-assisted esophagectomy in patients who have received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Initial reports have shown that integrating neoadjuvant therapy to robot-assisted esophagectomy is feasible and safe. With the growing popularity of robot-assisted surgery worldwide among both surgeons and patients, understanding the impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiation on the procedure and its oncological outcome seems worthwhile. In the present study, we present a review of available literature on the feasibility and safety of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

Minimal Invasive Esophagectomy-a New Dawn of EsophagealSurgery

Surgery is the mainstay of esophageal cancer. However, esophagectomy is a major surgical trauma on a patient with high morbidity and mortality. The intent of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is to decrease the degree of surgical trauma and perioperative morbidity associated with open surgery, and provide faster recovery and shorter hospital stay with the equivalent oncological outcome. It also allows for lesser pulmonary morbidity, less blood loss, less pain, and a better quality of life. MIE is safe and effective but has a steep learning curve with high technical expertise. Recently, it is increasingly accepted and adopted all over the globe. In this article, we discuss the safety, efficacy, short-term, and oncological outcomes of thoracoscopic- and laparoscopic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy and robotic surgery compared with open esophagectomy with a special focus on the Indian perspective.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE): tips and tricks from the bedside assistant view-expert experiences

The role of bedside assistants in robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy is important. It includes knowledge of the procedure, knowledge of the da Vinci Surgical System, skills in laparoscopy, and good communicative skills. An experienced bedside assistant will likely improve efficiency and safety of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy.

A structured training pathway to implement robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: the learning curve results from a high-volume center

To ensure safe implementation of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE), the learning process should be optimized. This study aimed to report the results of a surgeon who implemented RAMIE in a German high-volume center by following a tailored and structured training pathway that involved proctoring. Consecutive patients who underwent RAMIE during the course of the program were included from a prospective database. A single surgeon, who had prior experience in conventional MIE, performed all RAMIE procedures. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) learning curves were plotted for the thoracic operating time and intraoperative blood loss. Perioperative outcomes were compared between patients who underwent surgery before and after a learning curve plateau occurred. Between 2017 and 2018, the adopting center adhered to the structured training pathway, and a total of 70 patients were included in the analysis. The CUSUM learning curves showed plateaus after 22 cases. In consecutive cases 23 to 70, the operating time was shorter for both the thoracic phase (median 215 vs. 249 minutes, P = 0.001) and overall procedure (median 394 vs. 440 minutes, P = 0.005), intraoperative blood loss was less (median 210 vs. 400 milliliters, P = 0.029), and lymph node yield was higher (median 32 vs. 23 nodes, P = 0.001) when compared to cases 1 to 22. No significant differences were found in terms of conversion rates, postoperative complications, length of stay, completeness of resection, or mortality. In conclusion, the structured training pathway resulted in a short and safe learning curve for RAMIE in this single center's experience. As the pathway seems effective in implementing RAMIE without compromising the early oncological outcomes and complication rates, it is advised for surgeons who are wanting to adopt this technique.

A standardized approach for the thoracic dissection in robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE)

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is increasingly being adopted as the preferred surgical treatment for esophageal cancer, as it is superior to open esophagectomy and a good alternative to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy. This paper addresses the technical details of the thoracoscopic phase of RAMIE, including the operating room set-up, patient positioning, port placement, and surgical steps.

National trends and perioperative outcomes of robotic oesophagectomy following induction chemoradiation therapy: a National Cancer Database propensity-matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

Oesophagectomy following induction chemoradiation therapy (CRT) is technically challenging. To date, little data exist to describe the feasibility of a robotic approach in this setting. In this study, we assessed national trends and outcomes of robotic oesophagectomy following induction CRT compared to the traditional open approach.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for patients who underwent oesophagectomy following induction CRT (2010-2014). Trends of robotic utilization were assessed by a Mantel-Haenszel test of trend. Propensity matching controlled for differences in age, gender, comorbidity, stage, histology and tumour location between the robotic and open groups. Overall survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared by a log-rank test.

RESULTS

Oesophagectomy following induction CRT was performed in 6958 patients. Of them, 555 patients (8%) underwent robotic surgery (5% converted to an open approach). Between 2010 and 2014, utilization of a robotic approach increased from 3% to 11% (Mantel-Haenszel, P < 0.001) and the number of hospitals performing at least 1 robotic oesophagectomy increased from 23 to 57. Compared to the traditional open approach, robotic oesophagectomy was used more frequently at academic hospitals (76% vs 60%, P < 0.001), and in patients living in metropolitan areas (85% vs 77%, P < 0.001) and those living in the Midwest (41% vs 33%, P < 0.001). In the matched groups, a robotic approach was associated with shorter median hospital stay (9 vs 10 days, P = 0.004) and dissection of more lymph nodes (median, 16 vs 12, P < 0.001). However, there were no differences in rates of positive margin resection (5% for both groups, P = 0.95), 30-day readmissions (5% vs 7%, P = 0.18), 30-day mortality (2.5% vs 4%, P = 0.79), 90-day mortality (9% vs 8.5%, P = 0.89) or 5-year overall survival (42% vs 39%, P = 0.19) between patients undergoing robotic and open surgery, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic oesophagectomy after induction CRT is feasible and associated with shorter hospitalization compared to an open approach, and does not compromise the adequacy of oncological resection, perioperative outcomes or long-term survival.

Outcomes of 350 Robotic-assisted Esophagectomies at a High-volume Cancer Center: A Contemporary Propensity-score Matched Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate perioperative and oncologic outcomes in our RAMIE cohort and compare outcomes with contemporary OE controls.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

RAMIE has emerged as an alternative to traditional open or laparoscopic approaches. Described in all esophagectomy techniques, rapid adoption has been attributed to both enhanced visualization and technical dexterity.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent RAMIE for malignancy. Patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and survival were evaluated. For perioperative and oncologic outcome comparison, contemporary OE controls were propensity-score matched from NSQIP and NCDB databases.

RESULTS

We identified 350 patients who underwent RAMIE between 2010 and 2019. Median body mass index was 27.4, 32% demonstrated a Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥4. Nodal disease was identified in 50% of patients and 74% received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Mean operative time and blood loss were 425 minutes and 232 mL, respectively. Anastomotic leak occurred in 16% of patients, 2% required reoperation. Median LOS was 9 days, and 30-day mortality was 3%. A median of 21 nodes were dissected with 96% achieving an R0 resection. Median survival was 67.4 months. 222 RAMIE were matched 1:1 to the NSQIP OE control. RAMIE demonstrated decreased LOS (9 vs 10 days, P = 0.010) and reoperative rates (2.3 vs 12.2%, P = 0.001), longer operative time (427 vs 311 minutes, P = 0.001), and increased rate of pulmonary embolism (5.4% vs 0.9%, P = 0.007) in comparison to NSQIP cohort. There was no difference in leak rate or mortality. Three hundred forty-three RAMIE were matched to OE cohort from NCDB with no difference in median overall survival (63 vs 53 months; P = 0.130).

CONCLUSION

In this largest reported institutional series, we demonstrate that RAMIE can be performed safely with excellent oncologic outcomes and decreased hospital stay when compared to the open approach.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: Meticulous surgery minimizing postoperative complications

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been reported to reduce postoperative complications especially pulmonary complications and have equivalent long-term survival outcomes as compared to open esophagectomy. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) using da Vinci surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, USA) is rapidly gaining attention because it helps surgeons to perform meticulous surgical procedures. McKeown RAMIE has been preferably performed in East Asia where squamous cell carcinoma which lies in more proximal esophagus than adenocarcinoma is a predominant histological type of esophageal cancer. On the other hand, Ivor Lewis RAMIE has been preferably performed in the Western countries where adenocarcinoma including Barrett esophageal cancer is the most frequent histology. Average rates of postoperative complications have been reported to be lower in Ivor Lewis RAMIE than those in McKeown RAMIE. Ivor Lewis RAMIE may get more attention for thoracic esophageal cancer. The studies comparing RAMIE and MIE where recurrent nerve lymphadenectomy was thoroughly performed reported that the rate of recurrent nerve injury is lower in RAMIE than in MIE. Recurrent nerve injury leads to serious complications such as aspiration pneumonia. It seems highly probable that RAMIE is beneficial in performing recurrent nerve lymphadenectomy. Surgery for esophageal cancer will probably be more centralized in hospitals with surgical robots, which enable accurate lymph node dissection with less complications, leading to improved outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer. RAMIE might occupy an important position in surgery for esophageal cancer.

Robotic resection for esophageal cancer

Background

In the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer, complete tumor resection is the most important factor and determines long-term survival. With an increase in robotic expertise in other fields of surgery, robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) was born. Currently, there is a lack of convincing data on the extent of expected benefits (perioperative and oncologic outcomes and/or quality of life). Some evidence exists that patients’ overall quality of life and physical function improves, with less fatigue and pain 3 months after surgery. We aimed to review the available literature regarding robotic esophagectomy, compare perioperative, oncologic, and quality of life outcomes with open and minimally invasive approaches, and give a brief overview of our standardized four-arm RAMIE technique and explore future directions.

Methods

A Medline (PubMed) search was conducted including the following key words: esophagectomy, minimally invasive esophagectomy, robotic esophagectomy, Ivor Lewis and McKeown. We present the history, different techniques used, outcomes, and the standardization of robotic esophagectomy.

Results

Robotic esophagectomy offers a steeper learning curve with fewer complications but comparable oncological results compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Conclusions

Available studies suggest that RAMIE is associated with benefits regarding length of stay, clinical outcomes, and quality of life—if patients are treated in an experienced center with a standardized technique for robotic esophagectomy—making it a potentially beneficial tool in the treatment of esophageal cancer. However, center-wide standardization and prospective data collection will be a necessity to prove superiority of robotic esophagectomy.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy: clinical evidence and surgical techniques

Background

Surgical esophagectomy plays a crucial role in the curative and palliative treatment of esophageal cancer. Thereby, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly applied all over the world. Combining minimal invasiveness with improved possibilities for meticulous dissection, robot-assisted minimal invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been implemented in many centers.

Purpose

This review focuses on the development of MIE as well as RAMIE and their value based on evidence in current literature.

Conclusion

Although MIE and RAMIE are highly complex procedures, they can be performed safely with improved postoperative outcome and equal oncological results compared with open esophagectomy (OE). RAMIE offers additional advantages regarding surgical dissection, lymphadenectomy, and extended indications for advanced tumors.

Minimally invasive techniques for transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oesophagectomy is a demanding operation that can be performed by different approaches including open surgery or a combination of minimal access techniques. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of open, minimally invasive and robotic oesophagectomy techniques for oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting open oesophagectomy, laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO), thoracoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (TAO), totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) or robotic MIO (RAMIO) for oesophagectomy. A network meta-analysis of intraoperative (operating time, blood loss), postoperative (overall complications, anastomotic leaks, chyle leak, duration of hospital stay) and oncological (R0 resection, lymphadenectomy) outcomes, and survival was performed.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight studies involving 32 315 patients were included in the network meta-analysis (open 17 824, 55·2 per cent; LAO 1576, 4·9 per cent; TAO 2421 7·5 per cent; MIO 9558, 29·6 per cent; RAMIO 917, 2·8 per cent). Compared with open oesophagectomy, both MIO and RAMIO were associated with less blood loss, significantly lower rates of pulmonary complications, shorter duration of stay and higher lymph node yield. There were no significant differences between surgical techniques in surgical-site infections, chyle leak, and 30- and 90-day mortality. MIO and RAMIO had better 1- and 5-year survival rates respectively compared with open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive and robotic techniques for oesophagectomy are associated with reduced perioperative morbidity and duration of hospital stay, with no compromise of oncological outcomes but no improvement in perioperative mortality.

Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy: A standardized operative technique in 11 steps

SYNOPSIS

Standardization of robotic oesophagectomy can benefit both patients and surgeons by decreasing complications, shortening the learning curve and improving surgical training.

BACKGROUND

Thoraco-abdominal oesophagectomy with lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of curative therapy for oesophageal carcinoma. To reduce post-operative morbidity, minimally invasive technology has become increasingly established. Conventional thoraco-laparoscopic procedures, however, are limited by their technical feasibility. These limitations can be overcome using robot-assisted technology.

METHODS

Robotic Ivor-Lewis oesophageal resection has gradually been implemented in our clinic from 2013. We have performed over 250 robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomies and more than 2000 robotic procedures overall. This experience allowed us to establish a standardized operative technique.

RESULTS

We identified 11 operative steps as key elements for oesophageal resection, which should help implementation of this technique and allow surgeons to approach this complex procedure with greater confidence.

CONCLUSION

Standardization is fundamental to the establishment of a new surgical technique and is a key element in the learning curve of Ivor-Lewis oesophageal resection. Standardization can lead to better reproducibility of results, and thus to improved quality.

Lower Incidence of Postoperative Pulmonary Complications Following Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: Propensity Score-Matched Comparison to Conventional Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Whether robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery (RAMIE) is more beneficial than conventional minimally invasive surgery (MIE) remains unclear.

METHODS

In total, 165 consecutive patients with esophageal carcinoma who underwent esophagectomy between January 2015 and April 2020 were retrospectively assessed. A 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was performed to compare the short-term outcomes between RAMIE and conventional MIE.

RESULTS

After matching, 45 patients were included in the RAMIE and conventional MIE groups. RAMIE had a significantly longer total operative time (708 vs. 612 min, P < 0.001) and thoracic operative time (348 vs. 285 min, P < 0.001) than conventional MIE. However, there were no significant differences in terms of oncological outcomes, such as R0 resection rate and number of resected lymph nodes. The overall postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo [C-D] grade II or higher) rate of RAMIE and conventional MIE were 51% and 73% (P = 0.03), respectively, and the severe postoperative morbidity (C-D grade III or higher) rates were 11% and 29% (P = 0.04), respectively. The incidence rate of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy was halved in RAMIE (7%) compared with conventional MIE (20%) (P = 0.06). Finally, the pulmonary complication rate (18%) was significantly lower in patients who underwent RAMIE than in those who underwent conventional MIE (44%) (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

RAMIE was safe and feasible, even during the early period of its application at a specialized center. Moreover, it may be a promising alternative to conventional MIE, with better short-term outcomes, including significantly lower incidence of pulmonary complications.