Hybrid laparoscopic versus fully robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: an international propensity-score matched analysis of perioperative outcome

Full RAMIE vs Hybrid RAMIE: a retrospective study on outcomes evaluation and cost considerations

To compare the results of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy performed with a Fully Robot-Assisted technique (F-RAMIE) and a Hybrid approach with laparoscopic abdominal phase (H-RAMIE). Multicentric retrospective analysis of patients who underwent F-RAMIE and H-RAMIE between 2018 and 2023. The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative complications, secondary endpoints were clinical outcomes, oncological results and costs. Survival analyses were calculated according to the Kaplan-Meier method. The economic evaluation included costs related to operating room time, length of stay, surgical tools, and robotic system maintenance. A total of 100 patients from two experienced surgical centers were included: 64 H-RAMIE and 36 F-RAMIE. The two groups were comparable in baseline clinical conditions and staging. F-RAMIE was associated with longer operative time (434.7 ± 46.4 Vs. 477.3 ± 47.5 min, p < 0.001) and shorter length of Intensive Care Unit stay (1.1 ± 1.1 Vs. 2.3 ± 2.3 days, p = 0.002) than H-RAMIE. There were no significant differences in conversion rate, postoperative complications and length of stay. F-RAMIE demonstrated superior lymph node retrieval (43.8 ± 15.2 Vs. 22.4 ± 10.3, p < 0.001), but no differences in R0 resection rates. Overall survival and recurrences were comparable. Cost analysis revealed a slight economic advantage for F-RAMIE (20,556.3 ± 3,601.2 € Vs. 23,302.4 ± 5,894.5 € p = 0.012), mainly due to hospital stay-related cost (11,267.6 ± 5,912.8 € for H-RAMIE Vs. 8,360.3 ± 3,550.6 €, p = 0.007). F-RAMIE and H-RAMIE proved to be equally safe and effective in terms of postoperative complications and oncological outcomes.

A standardized protocol for robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: improving efficiency and reducing costs

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has shown potential benefits over conventional procedures for esophageal cancer. However, uniform surgical protocols are lacking, leading to variability in outcomes and increased costs. This retrospective study included 180 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent RAMIE between May 2018 and September 2024. A standardized approach, termed counterclockwise partitioned mediastinal dissection (CPMD), was introduced in 114 of these cases. Perioperative parameters including operative time, blood loss, complications, and cost of disposable instruments, were compared between patients treated before and after protocol standardization. Among the 114 patients who received the standardized RAMIE protocol, the median thoracic console time significantly decreased to 148 min, with overall blood loss reduced to 62 ml. No conversions to open surgery were required in either cohort. Compared to the pre-standardization group, postoperative complications-including recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis-were lower and only one patient needed reoperation. Importantly, reusing robotic instruments from the thoracic phase in the abdominal phase reduced disposable instrument costs, resulting in a savings of approximately 168,000 Japanese Yen (USD 1050) per case. Implementing a standardized RAMIE protocol enhances procedural efficiency, reduces blood loss, and lowers costs without compromising surgical or oncological outcomes. This approach may facilitate broader adoption of RAMIE as a safe and cost-effective strategy for esophageal cancer surgery.

Circumferential resection margin rates in esophageal cancer resection: oncological equivalency and comparable clinical outcomes between open versus minimally invasive techniques - a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Radical surgery for esophageal cancer requires macroscopic and microscopic clearance of all malignant tissue. A critical element of the procedure is achieving a negative circumferential margin (CRM) to minimize local recurrence. The utility of minimally invasive surgery poses challenges in replicating techniques developed in open surgery, particularly for hiatal dissection in esophago-gastrectomy. In this study, the technical approach and clinical and oncological outcomes for open and laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy are described with particular reference to CRM involvement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cohort study included all patients undergoing either open or laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy between January 2004 and June 2022 in a single tertiary center. A standard surgical technique for hiatal dissection of the esophago-gastric junction developed in open surgery was adapted for a laparoscopic approach. Clinical parameters, length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and mortality data were collected and analyzed by a Mann-Whitney U or Fisher's exact method.

RESULTS

Overall 447 patients underwent an esophago-gastrectomy in the study with 219 open and 228 laparoscopic procedures. The CRM involvement was 18.8% in open surgery and 13.6% in laparoscopic surgery. The 90-day-mortality for open surgery was 4.1 compared with 2.2% for laparoscopic procedures. Median Intensive care unit (ITU), inpatient LOS and 30-day readmission rates were shorter for laparoscopic compared with open esophago-gastrectomy (ITU: 5 versus 8 days, P= 0.0004; LOS: 14 versus 20 days, P= 0.022; 30-day re-admission 7.46 versus 10.50%). Postoperative complication rates were comparable across both cohorts. The rates of starting adjuvant chemotherapy were 51.8 after open and 74.4% in laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy.

CONCLUSION

This study presents a standardized surgical approach to hiatal dissection for esophageal cancer. The authors present equivalence between open and laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy in clinical, oncological, and survival outcomes with similar rates of CRM involvement. The authors also observe a significantly shorter hospital length of stay with the minimally invasive approach.

Robotic-assisted esophagectomy with total mesoesophageal excision enhances R0-resection in patients with esophageal cancer: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

The focus of this research is to examine the growing use of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy. Specifically, it evaluates the immediate clinical and cancer-related results of combining robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy with a systematic approach to total mesoesophageal excision, as opposed to traditional open transthoracic esophagectomy methods that do not employ a structured total mesoesophageal excision protocol.

METHODS

A propensity score-matched analysis of 185 robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomies and 223 open transthoracic esophagectomies after standardized Ivor Lewis esophagectomy was performed. After 1:1 nearest neighbor matching to account for confounding by covariates, outcomes of 181 robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy and 181 open transthoracic esophagectomy were compared.

RESULTS

The patient characteristics showed significant differences in the age distribution and in comorbidities such as coronary heart disease, arterial hypertension, and anticoagulant intake. The R0-resection rate of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (96.7%) was significantly higher than open transthoracic esophagectomy (89.0%, P = .004). Thirty-day mortality and hospital mortality showed no significant differences. Postoperative pneumonia rate after robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (12.7%) was significantly reduced (open transthoracic esophagectomy 28.7%, P < .001). Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy had a significantly shorter intensive care unit stay (P < .001) and shorter hospital stay (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This single-center, retrospective study employing propensity score matching found that combining robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy with structured total mesoesophageal excision results in better short-term clinical and oncologic outcomes than open transthoracic esophagectomy. This finding is significant because the increased rate of R0 resection could indicate a higher likelihood of improved long-term survival. Additionally, enhanced overall postoperative recovery may contribute to better risk management in esophagectomy procedures.

Total RAMIE with three-field lymph node dissection by a simultaneous two-team approach using a new docking method for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Thoracic esophageal cancer surgery using robotic approaches for the thoracic and abdominal parts has recently been reported as total robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). We herein present the first report of a new technique for esophageal cancer: total RAMIE with three-field lymph node dissection (3FLND) by a simultaneous two-team approach using a new docking method.

METHODS

We reviewed 20 patients who underwent total RAMIE with 3FLND by a simultaneous two-team approach at the National Cancer Center East Hospital from March 2023 to September 2023. Short-term surgical outcomes and the safety and efficacy of this technique were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean operative time for abdominal surgery with this new docking technique was 135 ± 19.6 min. The total operative time was 488 ± 42.9 min, and the time from the end of abdominal manipulation to the end of surgery was 80.1 ± 15.6 min. The intraoperative blood loss was 116.7 ± 64.4 mL. The incidence of anastomotic leakage, postoperative vocal cord paralysis, and postoperative pneumonia was 10%, 5%, and 10%, respectively. The median postoperative hospital stay was 14 days (range 11-63 days). No in-hospital deaths occurred, and R0 resection was possible in all cases. The average number of lymph nodes dissected was 87.7.

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrate that total RAMIE with a simultaneous two-team approach using the new docking method can be safely introduced. The simultaneous cervical and abdominal manipulation with the new docking method allowed total RAMIE without prolonging the operating time, suggesting that it may be a valuable approach for esophageal cancer surgery.

Surgical Techniques and Related Perioperative Outcomes After Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Gastrectomy (RAMIG): Results From the Prospective Multicenter International Ugira Gastric Registry

OBJECTIVE

To gain insight into the global practice of robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy (RAMIG) and evaluate perioperative outcomes using an international registry.

BACKGROUND

The techniques and perioperative outcomes of RAMIG for gastric cancer vary substantially in the literature.

METHODS

Prospectively registered RAMIG cases for gastric cancer (≥10 per center) were extracted from 25 centers in Europe, Asia, and South-America. Techniques for resection, reconstruction, anastomosis, and lymphadenectomy were analyzed and related to perioperative surgical and oncological outcomes. Complications were uniformly defined by the Gastrectomy Complications Consensus Group.

RESULTS

Between 2020 and 2023, 759 patients underwent total (n=272), distal (n=465), or proximal (n=22) gastrectomy (RAMIG). After total gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y-reconstruction, anastomotic leakage rates were 8% with hand-sewn (n=9/111) and 6% with linear stapled anastomoses (n=6/100). After distal gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y (67%) or Billroth-II-reconstruction (31%), anastomotic leakage rates were 3% with linear stapled (n=11/433) and 0% with hand-sewn anastomoses (n=0/26). Extent of lymphadenectomy consisted of D1+ (28%), D2 (59%), or D2+ (12%). Median nodal harvest yielded 31 nodes (interquartile range: 21-47) after total and 34 nodes (interquartile range: 24-47) after distal gastrectomy. R0 resection rates were 93% after total and 96% distal gastrectomy. The hospital stay was 9 days after total and distal gastrectomy, and was median 3 days shorter without perianastomotic drains versus routine drain placement. Postoperative 30-day mortality was 1%.

CONCLUSIONS

This large multicenter study provided a worldwide overview of current RAMIG techniques and their respective perioperative outcomes. These outcomes demonstrated high surgical quality, set a quality standard for RAMIG, and can be considered an international reference for surgical standardization.

Fashioning esophagogastric anastomosis in robotic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy: a multicenter experience

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study is to compare outcomes of the robotic hand-sewn, linear- and circular-stapled techniques performed to create an intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis in patients who underwent Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.

METHODS

Patients who underwent a planned Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy were retrospectively analysed from prospectively maintained databases. Only patients who underwent a robotic thoracic approach with the creation of an intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis were included in the study. Patients were divided into three groups: hand-sewn-, circular stapled-, and linear-stapled anastomosis group. Demographic information and surgery-related data were extracted. The primary outcome was the rate of anastomotic leakages (AL) in the three groups. Moreover, the rate of grade A, B and C anastomotic leakage were evaluated. In addition, patients of each group were divided in subgroups according to the characteristics of anastomotic fashioning technique.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty patients were enrolled in the study. No significant differences were found between the three groups about AL rate (p = 0.137). Considering the management of the AL for each of the three groups, no significant differences were found. Evaluating the correlation between AL rate and the characteristics of anastomotic fashioning technique, no significant differences were found.

CONCLUSIONS

No standardized anastomotic fashioning technique has yet been generally accepted. This study could be considered a call to perform ad hoc high-quality studies involving high-volume centers for upper gastrointestinal surgery to evaluate what is the most advantageous anastomotic technique.

Analysis of training pathway to reach expert performance levels based on proficiency-based progression in robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE)

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) was first introduced in 2003 and has since then shown to significantly improve the postoperative course. Previous studies have shown that a structured training pathway based on proficiency-based progression using individual skill levels as measures of reach of competence can enhance surgical performance. The aim of this study was to evaluate and help understand our pathway to reach surgical expert levels using a proficiency-based approach introducing RAMIE at our German high-volume center.

METHODS

All patients undergoing RAMIE performed by two experienced surgeons for esophageal cancer since the introduction of the robotic technique in 2017 was included in this analysis. Intraoperative outcomes and postoperative outcomes were included in the analysis. The cumulative sum method was used to analyze how many cases are needed to reach expert levels for different performance characteristics and skill sets during robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy.

RESULTS

From 06/2017 to 03/2022, a total of 154 patients underwent RAMIE at our facility and were included in the analysis. An advancement in performance level was observed for total operating time after 70 cases and for thoracic operative time after 79 cases. Lymph node yield showed an increase up until case 60 in the CUSUM analysis. Length of hospital stay stabilized after case 55. The CCI score inflection point was at case 55 in both CUSUM and regression analyses. Anastomotic leak rate stabilized at case 38 and showed another inflection point after case 83.

CONCLUSION

Our data and analysis showed the progression from proficient to expert performance levels during the implementation of RAMIE at a European high-volume center. Further analysis of surgeons, especially with a different training status has yet to reveal if the caseloads found in this study are universally applicable. However, skill acquisition and respective measures of such are diverse and as a great range of number of cases was observed, we believe that the learning curve and ascent in performance levels cannot be defined by one parameter alone.