Comparison of short-term outcomes between robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy and video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy in treating middle thoracic esophageal cancer

Robot-assisted functional minimally invasive radical resection of esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Recently, robot-assisted surgical systems have become more and more popular, but have not been reported in functional minimally invasive radical resection of esophageal cancer,which preserves the mediastinal pleura, the azygos arch, bronchial artery, and pulmonary branch of the vagus nerve.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of all patients in our hospital who underwent surgery for esophageal cancer from September 2022 to February 2024. Robot-assisted functional minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAFMIE)was performed for 44 patients who were compared with 66 functional minimally invasive esophagectomy (FMIE) cases.

RESULT

Significantly, shorter operation time was taken in RAFMIE (222.98 ± 28.02 vs 250.45 ± 30.25 min P < 0.001), thoracic operation time (75.50 ± 14.23 vs 89.59 ± 16.34 min P < 0.001), abdominal operation time (51.93 ± 14.18 vs 71.75 ± 14.85 min P < 0.001). Both groups were equal regarding intraoperative blood loss (82.73 ± 57.23 vs 94.55 ± 60.19 ml, P = 0.286), radical resection (R0) rate (97.73% vs 96.97%, P = 0.813) and total lymph node yield (25.45 ± 7.40 vs 21.03 ± 7.00, P = 0.013). Postoperative hospital stay (9.75 ± 2.23 vs 10.47 ± 2.72, P = 0.402); incidence of postoperative complications (25.76% vs 20.45%, P = 0.519).

CONCLUSION

Early results suggest that RAFMIE is safe and feasible for the treatment of esophageal cancer. The operation time of RAFMIE is shorter than FMIE, and the lymph node dissection results are better. Long-term results need to be further investigated.

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.

Is Robotic Surgery the Future for Resectable Esophageal Cancer?: A Systematic Literature Review of Oncological and Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Radical esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer is a major surgical intervention, associated with considerable postoperative morbidity. The introduction of robotic surgical platforms in esophagectomy may enhance advantages of minimally invasive surgery enabled by laparoscopy and thoracoscopy, including reduced postoperative pain and pulmonary complications. This systematic review aims to assess the clinical and oncological benefits of robot-assisted esophagectomy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane databases was performed for studies published up to 1 August 2023. This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocols and was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022370983). Clinical and oncological outcomes data were extracted following full-text review of eligible studies.

RESULTS

A total of 113 studies (n = 14,701 patients, n = 2455 female) were included. The majority of the studies were retrospective in nature (n = 89, 79%), and cohort studies were the most common type of study design (n = 88, 79%). The median number of patients per study was 54. Sixty-three studies reported using a robotic surgical platform for both the abdominal and thoracic phases of the procedure. The weighted mean incidence of postoperative pneumonia was 11%, anastomotic leak 10%, total length of hospitalisation 15.2 days, and a resection margin clear of the tumour was achieved in 95% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

There are numerous reported advantages of robot-assisted surgery for resectable esophageal cancer. A correlation between procedural volume and improvements in outcomes with robotic esophagectomy has also been identified. Multicentre comparative clinical studies are essential to identify the true objective benefit on outcomes compared with conventional surgical approaches before robotic surgery is accepted as standard of practice.

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.

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.

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.

Implementation of the robotic abdominal phase during robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE): results from a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the added value of robotic-assistance in the abdominal phase during esophagectomy is scarce. In 2003, our center implemented the robotic thoracic phase for esophagectomy. In November 2018 the robot was also implemented in the abdominal phase. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of the abdominal phase during robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE).

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent full RAMIE with intrathoracic anastomosis for esophageal cancer were included. Patients were extracted from a prospectively maintained institutional database. A cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was performed for abdominal operation time and abdominal lymph node yield. Intraoperative, postoperative and oncological outcomes including collected lymph nodes per abdominal lymph node station were reported.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2021, 70 consecutive patients were included. The majority of the patients had an adenocarcinoma (n = 55, 77%) and underwent neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy (n = 65, 95%). The median operative time for the abdominal phase was 180 min (range 110-233). The CUSUM analysis for abdominal operation time showed a plateau at case 22. There were no intraoperative complications or conversions during the abdominal phase. The most common postoperative complications were pneumonia (n = 18, 26%) and anastomotic leakage (n = 14, 20%). Radical resection margins were achieved in 69 (99%) patients. The median total lymph node yield was 42 (range 23-83) and the median abdominal lymph node yield was 16 (range 2-43). The CUSUM analysis for abdominal lymph node yield showed a plateau at case 21. Most abdominal lymph nodes were collected from the left gastric artery (median 4, range 0-20).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that a robotic abdominal phase was safely implemented for RAMIE without compromising intraoperative, postoperative and oncological outcomes. The learning curve is estimated to be 22 cases in a high-volume center with experienced upper GI robotic surgeons.

Robot-assisted esophagectomy may improve perioperative outcome in patients with esophageal cancer – a single-center experience

Background

Although the introduction of minimally invasive surgical techniques has improved surgical outcomes in recent decades, esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is still associated with severe complications and a high mortality rate. Robot-assisted surgery is already established in certain fields and robot-assisted esophagectomy may be a possible alternative to the standard minimally invasive esophagectomy. The goal of this study was to investigate whether robot assistance in esophagectomy can improve patient outcome while maintaining good oncological control.

Material and methods

Data of all patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy between January 2018 and November 2021 at University Hospital Mannheim was collected retrospectively. Patients were divided into two cohorts according to operative technique (standard minimally invasive (MIE) vs. robot-assisted esophagectomy (RAMIE), and their outcomes compared. In a separate analysis, patients were propensity score matched according to age, gender and histological diagnosis, leading to 20 matching pairs.

Results

95 patients were included in this study. Of those, 71 patients underwent robot-assisted esophagectomy and 24 patients underwent standard minimally invasive esophagectomy. Robot-assisted esophagectomy showed a lower incidence of general postoperative complications (52.1% vs. 79.2%, p=0.0198), surgical complications (42.3% vs. 75.0%, p=0.0055), a lower rate of anastomotic leakage (21.1% vs. 50.0%, p=0.0067), a lower Comprehensive Complication Index (median of 20.9 vs. 38.6, p=0.0065) as well as a shorter duration of hospital stay (median of 15 vs. 26 days, p=0.0012) and stay in the intensive care unit (median of 4 vs. 7 days, p=0.028) than standard minimally invasive surgery. After additionally matching RAMIE and MIE patients according to age, gender and diagnosis, we found significant improvement in the RAMIE group compared to the MIE group regarding the Comprehensive Complication Index (median of 20.9 vs. 38.6, p=0.0276), anastomotic leakage (20% vs. 55%, p=0.0484) and severe toxicity during neoadjuvant treatment (0 patients vs. 9 patients, p=0.005).

Conclusion

Robot-assisted surgery can significantly improve outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer. It may lead to a shorter hospital stay as well as lower rates of complications, including anastomotic leakage.

End to side circular stapled anastomosis during robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE)

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) represents an established approach for the treatment of esophageal cancer. Aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of our technique for performing the intrathoracic anastomosis during RAMIE.All the procedures were performed by the same surgeon using the same technique for performing the intrathoracic anastomosis. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were recorded. Postoperative complications were classified according to the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG); the primary outcome was the evaluation of the feasibility and safety of our technique. From 2016 to 2021, 204 patients underwent Ivor Lewis RAMIE at our Center. Two patients (0.9%) were converted during the thoracic phase. The anastomosis was completed in all the other patients forming complete anastomotic rings. The median duration for the robotic-assisted thoracoscopic phase was 224 minutes. Twenty-two of the RAMIE-Ivor Lewis patients had an anastomotic leakage (10.3%). The overall 90-day postoperative mortality was 1.9%. The procedure resulted to be feasible and safe in our cohort of patients.

Robot-assisted versus video-assisted thoraco-laparoscopic McKeown's esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis of minimally invasive approaches

Minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer decreases overall complication rate and leads to faster postoperative recovery. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy is becoming more common. Its three-dimensional view and wristed instruments may provide advantages over traditional thoraco-laparoscopic techniques. There are limited studies comparing robotic and conventional thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy. This study aimed to evaluate short-term outcomes of robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy (RAME) and video-assisted McKeown esophagectomy (VAME). All consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for middle and distal third esophageal cancer between January 2016 and December 2018 at our center were included in this study. Data on baseline characteristics, pathological data and short-term outcomes were collected in a dedicated database. Postoperative complications were defined as per recommendations of Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group. Histopathologic assessment was performed as per College of American Pathologists guidelines. Propensity score matching was performed for comparison between RAME and VAME groups using age, gender, performance status, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, body mass index, Charlson Index, tumor location, clinical tumor stage, and neoadjuvant treatment as covariates. A total of 74 patients were included, 25 of whom underwent RAME and 49 underwent VAME. Propensity score matching on 1:1 basis produced 25 pairs of patients, comparable in terms of baseline characteristics. Total operative time and estimated blood loss was similar between the two groups. Length of hospital stay was significantly lower in RAME group. Major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3A) were more common in VAME group, but not statistically significant. Median number of harvested lymph nodes and R0 resection rate did not differ in between the two groups. In our experience, robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy was comparable to video-assisted McKeown esophagectomy in terms of safety, feasibility and oncologic adequacy. Use of the robot was associated with reduced hospital stay. Further randomized controlled studies with larger patient samples are needed to compare the two.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been demonstrated to offer realistic three-dimensional visual clarity, flexible movement and so on. The high cost is the main reason hampering universal application. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of RAMIE versus video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE).

Methods

The PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to June 1, 2021, for studies comparing RAMIE and VAMIE.

Results

Nineteen studies were enrolled, which consisted of a total of 4,714 patients, including 2,306 patients in the RAMIE group and 2,408 patients in the VAMIE group. In RAMIE patients, higher numbers of total lymph nodes (MD =0.171, 95% CI: 0.086–0.255, P<0.001) and lymph nodes along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) (MD =0.219, 95% CI: 0.097–0.340, P<0.001) were removed. In RAMIE patients in the McKown group, higher numbers of total lymph nodes (MD =0.173, 95% CI: 0.080–0.265, P<0.001) and lymph nodes along the left RLN (MD =0.220, 95% CI: 0.090–0.350, P=0.001) were removed, while in those in the ESCC group, higher numbers of total lymph nodes (MD =0.249, 95% CI: 0.091–0.407, P=0.002) and lymph nodes along the left RLN (MD =0.239, 95% CI: 0.102–0.377, P=0.001) were removed.

Discussion

This study indicated that the main advantage of RAMIE was a greater number of harvested lymph nodes, which may be beneficial to diagnosis and local control. RCTs with larger sample sizes and studies reporting long-term outcomes are needed to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of RAMIE and VAMIE.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma, a randomized controlled trial (ROBOT-2 trial)

BACKGROUND

For patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction, radical esophagectomy with 2-field lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of the multimodality treatment with curative intent. Both conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) were shown to be superior compared to open transthoracic esophagectomy considering postoperative complications. However, no randomized comparison exists between MIE and RAMIE in the Western World for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

This is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven multicenter randomized controlled parallel-group superiority trial. All adult patients (age ≥ 18 and ≤ 90 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3, M0) esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction and with European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 will be assessed for eligibility and included after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 218) with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction are randomized to either RAMIE (n = 109) or MIE (n = 109). The primary outcome of this study is the total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes specified per lymph node station.

CONCLUSION

This is the first randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAMIE to MIE as surgical treatment for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction in the Western World. The hypothesis of the proposed study is that RAMIE will result in a higher abdominal and mediastinal lymph node yield specified per station compared to conventional MIE. Short-term results and the primary endpoint (total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes per lymph node station) will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient within this trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04306458 . Registered 13th March 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04306458; Date of first enrolment 18.01.2021; Target sample size 218; Recruitment status: Recruiting; Protocol version 2; Issue date 10.03.2020; Rev. 02.02.2021; Authors ET, PCvdS, PPG.

Long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted versus thoraco-laparoscopic McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched study

The long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted McKeown esophagectomy (RAME) compared to thoraco-laparoscopic McKeown esophagectomy (TLME) for the patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remain unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the number of dissected lymph nodes and long-term survival between RAME and TLME using a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis. A total of 721 patients undergoing minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy at our department from February 2015 to October 2019 were analyzed, including 310 patients in RAME group and 411 in TLME group. The exact numbers of lymph nodes including those among thoracic and abdominal categories as well as those along the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) were all recorded. PSM analysis was applied to generate matched pairs for further comparison. All patients with R0 resection were followed with a strict follow-up period which range from 1 to 56 months. The effect of lymphadenectomy was compared between all patients in unmatched and matched groups. Long-term outcomes consisting of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence rate (including regional recurrence rate, systemic recurrence rate and mediastinal lymph nodes recurrence rate) were compared in R0 resection patients. Finally, 292 patients were identified for each cohort after PSM. RAME was found to yield significantly more left RLN lymph nodes (mean: 2.27 ± 0.90 vs. 2.09 ± 0.79; P = 0.011) and more thoracic lymph nodes (mean: 12.60 ± 4.22 vs. 11.83 ± 3.12, P = 0.012) compared with TLME after PSM analysis. There was no significant difference in the OS and DFS between the RAME and TLME group. Besides, total recurrences were recognized in 33 (11.7%) patients in the RAME group and 36 (12.9%) in the TLME group (P = 0.676). The mediastinal lymph nodes recurrence rate in the RAME group was tended to be lower than that in the TLME group (2.5% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.079). Therefore, RAME might be an alternative approach for the treatment of ESCC with more lymph nodes dissected and similar long-term survival outcomes compared to TLME.

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 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.

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.

A standardized procedure for upper mediastinal lymph node dissection improves the safety and efficacy of robotic McKeown oesophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) palsy is a common complication of upper mediastinal lymph node dissection (UMLND) in the context of oesophageal cancer surgery. In an effort to reduce its occurrence, we developed a standardised surgical procedure that allows flexible suspension of the left RLN during robotic McKeown oesophagectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who received robotic McKeown oesophagectomy for cancer were divided into two groups (pre and poststandardisation). Perioperative outcomes were retrospectively compared.

RESULTS

The pre and poststandardisation groups consisted of 44 and 42 patients, respectively. There were no significant intergroup differences in terms of number of dissected lymph nodes. Compared with the prestandardisation group, patients treated after standardisation had a markedly lowered incidence of left RLN palsy (20.5% vs. 4.8%, respectively, p = 0.029) and a reduced mean thoracic operating time (161.05 vs. 131 min, respectively, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our standardised surgical approach is efficient and may increase the safety of UMLND.

Risk of chyle leak after robotic versus video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

We investigate the incidence and risk factors for post-operative outcomes including chyle leak following minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).

METHODS

Patients undergoing MIE from May 2016 until August 2020 were prospectively followed. Outcomes of robotic and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) esophagectomy were analyzed.

RESULTS

347 esophagectomies were performed: 70 cases were done robotically by 2 surgeons and 277 by VATS by 14 surgeons. Patients had similar demographics, surgical technique, length of stay (LOS), and re-operation rates. Overall complication rates between robotic and VATS MIE were statistically similar (61% vs. 50%; p = 0.082). The majority of complications for either VATS (41.5%) or robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) (51.4%) were grade II. Nineteen patients developed a chyle leak. Patients with a chyle leak were similar in age, gender, and hospital LOS (all p > 0.05), but were more likely to undergo a three-hole or robotic esophagectomy (both p < 0.05) as well as have higher rehabilitation requirements on discharge (26% vs. 10%; p = 0.05). Among the two surgeons who each performed > 20 robotic esophagectomies (n = 70), nine chyle leaks occurred. Rates varied by surgeon (7 vs. 2; p = 0.003). Lower leak rates occurred in the surgeon with more robotic esophagectomy experience (n = 47 vs. 23). Patients were similar in age, and gender (p > 0.05), but those with a chyle leak were more likely to undergo three-hole esophagectomies, prophylactic thoracic duction ligations, undergo the abdominal portion via laparotomy, and not have a prophylactic omental flap (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Robotic and VATS esophagectomy have similar rates of re-operation, length of stay, discharge needs and complications. Differences in outcomes between VATS and Robotic esophagectomy appears to be related to surgeon experience with the robot but may also be associated with techniques such as anastomotic height, omental flap utilization and performance of laparoscopy.

Propensity matched analysis of short term oncological and perioperative outcomes following robotic and thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy for carcinoma esophagus- the first Indian experience

Thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy (TLE) for carcinoma esophagus has better short-term outcomes compared to open esophagectomy. The precise role of robot-assisted laparoscopic esophagectomy (RALE) is still evolving. Single center retrospective analysis of TLE and RALE performed for carcinoma esophagus between January 2015 and September 2018. Propensity score matching was done between the groups for age, gender, BMI, ASA grade, tumor location, neoadjuvant therapy, the extent of surgical resection (Ivor Lewis or McKeown’s), histopathological type (squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma), clinical T and N stages. The primary outcome parameter was lymph node yield. Secondary outcome parameters were resection margin status, duration of surgery, blood loss, conversion to open procedure, length of hospital stay, length of ICU stay, complications, 90-day mortality and cost. There were 90 patients in TLE and 25 patients in RALE group. After propensity matching, there were 22 patients in each group. The lymph node yield was similar in both the groups (23.95 ± 8.23 vs 22.73 ± 11.63; p = 0.688). There were no conversions or positive resection margins in either group. RALE was associated with longer operating duration (513.18 ± 91.23 min vs 444.77 ± 64.91 min; p = 0.006) and higher cost ($5271.75 ± 456.46 vs $4243.01 ± 474.64; p < 0.001) than TLE. Both were comparable in terms of blood loss (138.86 ± 31.20 ml vs 133.18 ± 34.80 ml; p = 0.572), Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa and above complications (13.64% vs 9.09%; p = 0.634), hospital stay (12.18 ± 6.35 days vs 12.73 ± 7.83 days; p = 0.801), ICU stay (4.91 ± 5.22 days vs 4.77 ± 4.81 days; p = 0.929) and mortality (0 vs 4.55%; p = 0.235). RALE is comparable to TLE in terms of short-term oncological and perioperative outcomes except for longer operating duration when performed for carcinoma esophagus. RALE is costlier than TLE.

Does robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy have superiority over thoraco-laparoscopic minimally invasive oesophagectomy in lymph node dissection?

Although robotic techniques have been used for oesophagectomy for many years, whether robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy (RAMIE) can actually improve outcomes and surpass thoraco-laparoscopic minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIE) in the success rate of lymph node dissection remains to be empirically demonstrated. Therefore, we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies to systematically compare the effect of lymph node dissection and the incidence of vocal cord palsy between RAMIE and MIE. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to December 1, 2019, for case-control studies that compared RAMIE with MIE. Thirteen articles were included, with a total of 1,749 patients with esophageal cancer, including 866 patients in the RAMIE group and 883 patients in the MIE group. RAMIE yielded significantly larger numbers of total dissected lymph nodes (WMD = 1.985; 95% CI, 0.448-3.523; P = 0.011) and abdominal lymph nodes (WMD = 1.686; 95% CI, 0.420-2.951; P = 0.009) as well as lymph nodes along RLN (WMD = 0.729; 95% CI, 0.348-1.109; P < 0.001) than MIE. Additionally, RAMIE could significantly decrease estimated blood loss (WMD = -11.208; 95% CI, -19.358 to -3.058; P = 0.007) and the incidence of vocal cord palsy (OR = 0.624; 95% CI, 0.411-0.947; P = 0.027) compared to MIE. Compared with MIE, RAMIE resulted in a higher total lymph node yield and a higher lymph node yield in the abdomen and along RLN, along with reduced blood loss during surgery and the incidence of vocal cord palsy. Therefore, RAMIE could be considered to be a standard treatment, with less blood loss, lower incidence of vocal cord palsy, and more radical lymph node dissection, exhibiting superiority over MIE.

Comparison of short-term clinical outcomes between robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy and video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Though robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is demonstrated to offer a better visualization and provide a fine dissection of the mediastinal structures to facilitate the complex thoracoscopic operation, the superiorities of RAMIE over MIE have not been well verified. The aim of this study was to explore the actual superiorities through comparing short-term results of RAMIE with that of MIE.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE and web of science databases were systematically searched up to September 1, 2020 for case-controlled studies that compared RAMIE with TLMIE.

Results

Fourteen studies were identified, with a total of 2,887 patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer, including 1,435 patients subjected to RAMIE group and 1,452 patients subjected to MIE group. The operative time in RAMIE was still significantly longer than that in MIE group (OR =0.785; 95% CI, 0.618-0.952; P<0.001). The incidence of pneumonia was significantly lower in RAMIE group compared with MIE group (OR =0.677; 95% CI, 0.468-0.979; P=0.038).

Conclusions

RAMIE has the superiorities over MIE in short-term outcomes in terms of pneumonia and vocal cord palsy. Therefore, RAMIE could be considered as a standard treatment for patients with esophageal cancer.

Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy with Intrathoracic Anastomosis (Ivor Lewis): Promising Results in 100 Consecutive Patients (the European Experience)

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) with intrathoracic anastomosis is gaining popularity as a treatment for esophageal cancer. The aim of this study was to describe postoperative complications and short-term oncologic outcomes for RAMIE procedures using the da Vinci Xi robotic system 4-arm technique.

METHODS

Data of 100 consecutive patients with esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction carcinoma undergoing modified Ivor Lewis esophagectomy were prospectively collected. All operations were performed by the same surgeon using an identical intrathoracic anastomotic reconstruction technique with the same perioperative management. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were graded according to Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) definitions.

RESULTS

Mean duration was 416 min (±80); 70% of patients had an uncomplicated postoperative recovery. Pulmonary complications were observed in 17% of patients. Anastomotic leakage was observed in 8% of patients. Median ICU stay was 1 day and median overall postoperative hospital stay was 11 days. The 30-day mortality was 1%; 90-day mortality was 3%. A R0 resection was reached in 92% of patients with a median number of 29 dissected lymph nodes. All patients had at least 7 months of follow-up with a median follow-up of 17 months. Median overall survival was not reached yet.

CONCLUSION

RAMIE with intrathoracic anastomosis (Ivor Lewis) for esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction cancer was technically feasible and safe. Postoperative complications and short-term oncologic results were comparable to the highest international standards nowadays.

Hand-assisted robotic surgery in the abdominal phase of robot-assisted oesophagectomy

Robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy (RAMIE) has been developed to overcome the technical limitations of conventional thoracoscopic oesophagectomy. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is used as a practical and useful technique during the abdominal phase of thoracoscopic oesophagectomy. During RAMIE, a robotic vessel sealer cannot be used with HALS; another vessel sealer or ultrasonic coagulating device for laparoscopic surgery is required. We report an initial experiment using hand-assisted robotic surgery (HARS) for abdominal manipulation during RAMIE as a novel method. Under the pneumoperitoneum induced by insufflating the abdomen to 10 mmHg with carbon dioxide, the assistant surgeon lifted the stomach and greater omentum using the left hand through a 7 cm upper abdominal midline incision at approximately 2 cm below the xiphoid. Subsequently, gastric mobilisation was performed by robot-assisted surgery. Between January 2019 and February 2020, eight patients with thoracic oesophageal cancer underwent RAMIE with HARS at our hospital. The median operative time for extracorporeal manipulation and preparation for the roll-in of the robot was 39.5 min. The median console time was 47.5 min. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications related to the use of the robot and no in-hospital mortality. In conclusion, HARS seems to be feasible and safe for abdominal manipulation during oesophageal cancer surgery.

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.

Lymph node dissection around left recurrent laryngeal nerve: robot-assisted vs. video-assisted McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the advantages of robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy (RAME) for extensive superior mediastinal lymph node dissection (LND) versus video-assisted McKeown esophagectomy (VAME).

METHODS

The cases of 184 consecutive esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients who underwent minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy (109 with RAME, 75 with VAME) performed by a single surgical group between June 2017 and December 2019 were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Overall, 59.8% (110/181) patients (70 treated with RAME, 40 treated with VAME; 64.2% vs. 53.3%, respectively, p = 0.139) underwent complete LND around the left recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) by pathological assessment. Cumulative sum plots showed increased numbers of LND around the left RLN (3.6 ± 2.0 vs. 5.4 ± 2.7, p = 0.008) and a decreased incidence of recurrent nerve injury (27.9% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.037) after RAME learning curve. Despite similar overall LND results (30.6 ± 10.2 vs. 28.1 ± 10.2, p > 0.05), RAME yielded more LND (5.4 ± 2.7 vs. 4.4 ± 2.2, p = 0.016) and a greater proportion of lymph node metastases (37.0% vs. 7.5%) around the left RLN but induced a lower proportion of recurrent nerve injuries (7.4% vs. 22.5%, p = 0.178) compared with VAME. Further analysis revealed that the complete LND around the left RLN was associated with recurrent nerve injury in the RAME (20.0% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.035) and VAME (22.5% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.041) groups but did not affect other clinical outcomes including surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative intensive care unit stay, hospital stay, and other complications.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with ESCC, RAME has great advantages in LND around the left RLN and recurrent nerve protection after learning curve of robotic esophagectomy.

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.

Recurrent laryngeal nerve monitoring during totally robot-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy

Purpose

The robot-assisted approach for Ivor Lewis esophagectomy offers an enlarged, three-dimensional overview of the intraoperative situs. The vagal nerve (VN) can easily be detected, preserved, and intentionally resected below the separation point of the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN). However, postoperative vocal cord paresis can result from vagal or RLN injury during radical lymph node dissection, presenting a challenge to the operating surgeon.

Methods

From May to August 2019, 10 cases of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) with extended 2-field lymphadenectomy, performed at the University Medical Center Mainz, were included in a prospective cohort study. Bilateral intermittent intraoperative nerve monitoring (IONM) of the RLN and VN was performed, including pre- and postoperative laryngoscopy assessment.

Results

Reliable mean signals of the right VN (2.57 mV/4.50 ms) and the RLN (left 1.24 mV/3.71 ms, right 0.85 mV/3.56 ms) were obtained. IONM facilitated the identification of the exact height of separation of the right RLN from the VN. There were no cases of permanent postoperative vocal paresis. Median lymph node count from the paratracheal stations was 5 lymph nodes.

Conclusion

IONM was feasible during RAMIE. The intraoperative identification of the RLN location contributed to the accuracy of lymph node dissection of the paratracheal lymph node stations. RLN damage and subsequent postoperative vocal cord paresis can potentially be prevented by IONM.

Precautions for avoiding pulmonary morbidity after esophagectomy

Pulmonary morbidity is the most common complication after esophagectomy. Importantly, it is the main cause of surgery-related mortality and possibly adversely affects the long-term outcome after surgery in patients with esophageal cancer. There is considerable accumulated evidence on multidisciplinary approaches to reduce post-operative pulmonary morbidity. A comprehensive review of the precautionary measures that have so far been shown to be effective in previous literature is of utmost importance. We herein update and summarize the perioperative and surgical approaches to diminish pulmonary morbidity. Pre-operative smoking cessation, respiratory rehabilitation, maintaining oral hygiene, perioperative nutritional intervention, enforcement of less invasive surgery, perioperative administration of steroid, and total management by a multidisciplinary team could be the key factors contributing to reduction in pulmonary morbidity.

Short- and mid-term outcomes of robotic versus thoraco-laparoscopic McKeown esophagectomy for squamous cell esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched study

Controversy exists on the advantages of robotic McKeown esophagectomy (RME) versus thoraco-laparoscopic McKeown esophagectomy (TLME). The aim was to evaluate the short- and mid-term outcomes of RME and TLME in the treatment of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). A consecutive series of 652 patients, 280 in RME and 372 in TLME, who underwent minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for ESCC at our department from November 2015 to June 2018 was analyzed. A propensity score-matched comparison with clinicopathological covariates was performed between the two groups. Complications were categorized based on the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) recommendation. To identify the recurrence, all patients with R0 resection were followed with a median follow-up period of 20.2 months (range 1-33 months). After propensity score matching, 271 patients were identified for each cohort. In the matched cohorts, two patients died within 90 days in TLME, whereas no patients died in RME. RME was associated with similar intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.895), but with shorter surgical duration (244.5 vs. 276.0 min, P < 0.001), shorter thoracic duration (85.0 vs. 102.9 min, P < 0.001) and lower thoracic conversions (0.7% vs. 5.9%, P = 0.001). In spite of the similar results on total and thoracic lymph nodes dissection, RME yielded more lymph nodes along recurrent laryngeal nerve (4.8 vs. 4.1, P = 0.012), as well as the higher incidence of recurrent nerve injury (29.2% vs. 15.1%, P < 0.001) when compared to TLME. Tumor recurrence occurred in 30 patients and was locoregional only in 9 (3.5%) patients, systemic only in 17 (6.7%) patients, and combined in 4 (1.6%) patients in RME, while in 26 patients and was locoregional only in 10 (10.6%) patients, systemic only in 7 (2.8%) patients, and combined in 9 (3.6%) patients in TLME. RME was associated with a lower rate of mediastinal lymph nodes recurrence (2.0% vs. 5.3%, P = 0.044). Overall and disease-free survival was not different between the two cohorts (P = 0.097 and P = 0.248, respectively). RME was shown to be a safe and oncologically effective approach with favorable short- and mid-term outcomes in the treatment of patients with ESCC.

Essential Updates 2018/2019: Essential Updates for esophageal cancer surgery

Key papers to treatment of esophageal cancer surgery and reduction of postoperative complications after esophagectomy published between 2018 and 2019 were reviewed. Within this review there was a focus on minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), robot-assisted MIE (RAMIE), and centralization to high-volume center. Advantages of MIE, irrespectively of hybrid or total MIE, to prevent postoperative complications, especially pneumonia, were shown in comparison to open procedure. However, whether total MIE has evident effects or not, as compared to hybrid MIEs, still remains unclear. Differences between RAMIE and MIE were reported to be marginal, though the advantage of lymphadenectomy, especially along recurrent laryngeal nerve, has been suggested. Centralization to high-volume center evidently benefits esophageal cancer patients by improving short-term outcomes. The definition of high-volume center has not been established yet, though institutional structure and quality are thought to be important. Transmediastinal esophagectomy, currently developed, has a potential to be one radical option of MIE for esophageal cancer.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer: a propensity-matched analysis

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is increasingly being applied as treatment for esophageal cancer. In this study, the results of 50 RAMIE procedures were compared with 50 conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) operations, which had been the standard treatment for esophageal cancer prior to the robotic era. Between April 2016 and March 2018, data of 100 consecutive patients with esophageal carcinoma undergoing modified Ivor Lewis esophagectomy were prospectively collected. All operations were performed by the same surgeon using an identical intrathoracic anastomotic reconstruction technique with the same perioperative management and pain control regimen. Intra-operative and postoperative complications were graded according to definitions stated by the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group. Data analysis was carried out with and without propensity score matching. Baseline characteristics did not show significant differences between the RAMIE and MIE group. Propensity score matching of the initial group of 100 patients resulted in two equal groups of 40 patients for each surgical approach. In the RAMIE group, the median total lymph node yield was 27 (range 13-84) compared to 23 in the MIE group (range 11-48), P = 0.053. Median intensive care unit (ICU) stay was 1 day (range 1-43) in the RAMIE group compared to 2 days (range 1-17) in the MIE group (P = 0.029). The incidence of postoperative complications was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.581). In this propensity-matched study comparing RAMIE to MIE, ICU stay was significantly shorter in the RAMIE group. There was a trend in improved lymphadenectomy in RAMIE.

Comparison of the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive, video-assisted minimally invasive, and open esophagectomy

Background

The development of minimally invasive surgery has initiated many changes in the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer (EC) patients. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE), video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE), and open esophagectomy (OE).

Methods

Our study included patients who had undergone McKeown esophagectomy at Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital between January 2016 and December 2018. We analyzed clinical baseline data, as well as perioperative and pathological outcomes.

Results

A total of 312 cases met the inclusion criteria (OE: 77, VAMIE: 144, RAMIE: 91). The OE group had a greater number of late-stage patients as well as those who received the neo-adjuvant therapy, compared with the other two groups (P=0.001). The procedure time in the OE group was also shorter by approximately 20 minutes (P=0.021). Total blood loss was significantly lower in the two MIE groups (P=0.004) than in the OE group. There were no differences in the total number of dissected lymph nodes between the three groups (OE: 24.09±10.77, VAMIE: 23.07±10.18, RAMIE: 22.84±8.37, P=0.680). Both the lymph node number (P=0.155) and achievement rate (P=0.190) in the right recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) area were comparable between the three groups. However, in the left RLN area, minimally invasive approaches resulted in a higher number of harvested lymph nodes (P=0.032) and greater achievement rate (P=0.018). Neither MIE procedure increased the incidence of postoperative complications.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive surgery could guarantee the quality of bilateral RLN lymphadenectomy without increasing postoperative complications, especially in RAMIE patients. The rational choice of different surgical approaches would improve both safety and oncological outcomes for patients.

Ergonomic thoracic port design for video-assisted thoracoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy and lymphadenectomy: a preliminary pilot study

Background

Video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been widely applied in clinical practice. However, the optimal port design for thoracoscopic esophagectomy and lymphadenectomy has not been well established. Here we introduced our novel ergonomic thoracic port design as well as our novel procedures of lymphadenectomy via tissue interactive retraction and compared its effects with that of conventional port design in this pilot study.

Methods

Patients undergoing McKeown MIE from January 2018 to December 2018 in one surgical team were randomly assigned into the ergonomic port design group and conventional port design group. Data of baseline characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and ergonomic assessment were collected and compared between the two groups.

Results

A total of 70 patients undergoing curative McKeown MIE were randomly assigned and there were 35 patients in each group. The baseline characteristics between the two groups were comparable and well-matched. Moreover, there was no significant difference of number of total dissected lymph nodes, positive lymph nodes and total dissected mediastinal lymph nodes between the two groups. As for perioperative outcomes, there was also no significant difference of in-operating time and blood loss in the thoracic part between the two groups. However, there were significantly less times of forced pause of the surgeon by fatigue during thoracic part in the ergonomic group compared to conventional group (mean time: 1.1 vs. 7.4, respectively; P<0.001) and the symptom score referable to the musculoskeletal system by the surgeon was significantly lower in the ergonomic group than in the conventional group (2.3 vs. 7.6; P<0.001). Postoperatively, there was no significant difference of hospital stay duration and rate of complication and 30-day mortality between the two groups.

Conclusions

Our novel thoracoscopic port design and procedures of lymphadenectomy was proved to be feasible and ergonomic, which could be easily mastered by most of the thoracic surgeons.

Does robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy really have the advantage of lymphadenectomy over video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy in treating esophageal squamous cell carcinoma? A propensity score-matched analysis based on short-term outcomes

This study aims to investigate advantages of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) over video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE) in treating esophageal squamous cell carcinoma by applying propensity score-matched analysis. From April 2016 to January 2018, consecutive patients undergoing a McKeown RAMIE or VAMIE for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were prospectively included for analysis. Baseline data, pathological findings, and short-term outcomes of the two groups (RAMIE group and VAMIE group) were collected and compared. Propensity score-matched analysis was applied to generate matched pairs for further comparison. Finally, we included a total of 151 patients (RAMIE group: 79 patients, VAMIE group: 72 patients) for analysis. In the analysis of unmatched cohort, RAMIE yielded a significantly larger number of total dissected lymph nodes (mean: 20.6 ± 8.8 vs. 17.9 ± 7.7; P = 0.048) and abdominal lymph nodes (mean: 9.5 ± 6.8 vs. 7.4 ± 5.1; P = 0.039) than VAMIE. However, there was no significantly different risk of major complications between the two groups. In the analysis of matched cohort, RAMIE still yielded a significantly larger number of total dissected lymph nodes (P = 0.006) and abdominal lymph nodes (P = 0.042) than VAMIE. There was still no increased risk of postoperative major complications in the RAMIE group compared to the VAMIE group. Moreover, RAMIE was found to yield significantly more left recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph nodes (mean: 1.0 ± 1.8 vs. 0.4 ± 0.8; P = 0.033) than VAMIE without increasing the risk of recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis. Therefore, RAMIE may have the advantage of lymphadenectomy over VAMIE without increasing any risk of postoperative major complications. Further well-conducted studies, however, are needed to confirm our conclusions.

Robot-assisted esophagectomy (RAE) versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: protocol for a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial (RAMIE trial, robot-assisted minimally invasive Esophagectomy)

Background

Currently, there are three main surgical approaches for resectable esophageal cancer: open transthoracic esophagectomy (OTE), conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot-assisted esophagectomy (RAE). Previous studies had demonstrated the better short-term outcomes in MIE or RAE when compared to OTE, respectively. However, to date, no prospective study was designed to compare these two minimally invasive approaches (MIE and RAE). The primary objective of this study is to compare the outcomes on survival, safety and efficacy, quality of life between RAE and MIE in the treatment for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

Methods

This study is designed as a multicenter, prospective, randomized, non-inferiority phase III clinical trial, investigating the safety and efficacy of RAE compared with MIE in the treatment of resectable ESCC. Eligible patients are randomly assigned to either RAE (n = 180) or MIE (n = 180) group. The follow-up visits will be scheduled at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in the first two years, and then every 6 months until the end of the study. During the follow-up period, clinical data and quality of life questionnaires will be examined. The primary endpoint is the 5-year overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints are 3-year OS, 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), short-term outcomes as well as quality of life.

Discussion

This is the first prospectively randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAE with MIE as surgical treatment for resectable ESCC. According to our hypothesis, RAE will result in at least similar oncologic outcomes and long-term quality of life, but with a shorter operation time, lower percentage of perioperative complications, lower blood loss, and shorter hospital stay when compared with MIE. This study started in July 2017. Follow-up will terminate after 5 years from the time when the last patient was enrolled.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT03094351 (March 29, 2017). The trial was prospectively registered.

Early Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Versus Thoracoscopic-Assisted Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Both robot-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (RAILE) and conventional thoracoscopic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (TAILE) are minimally invasive surgical techniques for the treatment of middle and distal esophageal cancer. However, no research studies comparing early outcomes between RAILE and TAILE have been reported.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was made of 184 patients, 76 in the RAILE group and 108 in the TAILE group, who underwent minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy between December 2014 and June 2018. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed between the two groups based on demographics, comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor location, tumor size, and pathological stage. Perioperative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Two conversions to thoracotomy occurred in the RAILE group. There was no 30-day in either group. Sixty-six matched pairs were identified for each group. Within the propensity score-matched cohorts, the operative time in the RAILE group was significantly longer than that in the TAILE group (302.0 ± 62.9 vs. 274.7 ± 38.0 min, P = 0.004). There was no significant difference in the blood loss [200.0 ml (interquartile range [IQR], 100.0-262.5 ml) vs. 200.0 ml (150.0-245.0 ml), P = 0.100], rates of overall complications (28.8 vs. 24.2%, P = 0.554), length of stay [9.0 days (IQR 8.0-12.3 days) vs. 9.0 days (IQR 8.0-11.3 days), P = 0.517], the number of total dissected lymph nodes (19.2 ± 9.2 vs. 19.3 ± 9.5, P = 0.955), and detailed categories of lymph nodes.

CONCLUSIONS

RAILE demonstrated comparable early outcomes compared with TAILE and should be considered as an alternative minimally invasive option for treating esophageal cancer.

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus the conventional minimally invasive one: A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Conventional video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is safe and associated with low rates of morbidity and mortality, but the two-dimensional monitor reduces eye-hand harmony and viewing yield. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) with its virtual reality simulators offers a realistic three-dimensional environment that facilitates dissection in the narrow working space, but it is expensive and requires longer operative time. Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the safety and feasibility of RAMIE versus MIE in patients with esophageal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Chinese Biomedical Literature databases were systematically searched up to 21 September 2018 for case-controlled studies that compared RAMIE with MIE.

RESULT

Eight case-controlled studies involving 1862 patients (931 under RAMIE and 931 under MIE) were considered. No statistically significant difference between the two techniques was observed regarding R0 resection rate (OR = 1.1174, P = 0.8647), conversion to open (OR = 0.7095, P = 0.7519), 30-day mortality rate (OR = 0.8341, P = 0.7696), 90-day mortality rate (OR = 0.3224, P = 0.3329), in-hospital mortality rate (OR = 0.3733, P = 0.3895), postoperative complications, number of harvested lymph nodes (mean difference [MD] = 0.8216, P = 0.2039), operation time (MD = 24.3655 min, P = 0.2402), and length of stay in hospitals (LOS) (MD = -5.0228 day, P = 0.1342). The meta-analysis showed that RAMIE was associated with a significantly fewer estimated blood loss (EBL) (MD = -33.2268 mL, P = 0.0075). And the vocal cord palsy rate was higher in the MIE group compared with RAMIE, and the difference was significant (OR = 0.5696, P = 0.0447).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis indicated that RAMIE and MIE display similar feasibility and safety when used in esophagectomy. However, randomized controlled studies with larger sample sizes are needed to evaluate the benefit and harm in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing RAMIE.

Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score matched analysis

Background

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was shown to be effective in reducing the morbidity and was adopted increasingly. The robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) remains in the initial stage of application. This study evaluated its safety and feasibility by comparing short-term outcomes of RAMIE and video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE).

Methods

Between March 2016 and December 2017, 115 consecutive patients underwent RAMIE or VAMIE at our institute. The baseline characteristics, pathological data and short-term outcomes of these two group patients were collected and compared. RAMIE patients were propensity score matched with VAMIE patients for a more accurate comparison.

Results

Matching based on propensity scores produced 27 patients in each group. After propensity score matching (PSM), the baseline characteristics between the two groups were comparable. The operation time in RAMIE group was significantly longer than that in VAMIE group (349 and 294 min, respectively; P < 0.001). The blood loss volume in RAMIE group was less than that in VAMIE group (119 and 158 ml, respectively), but with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.062). There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to the mean number of dissected lymph nodes (20 and 19, respectively; P = 0.420), postoperative hospital stay (13.8 and 12.7 days, respectively; P = 0.548), the rate of overall complications (37.0 and 33.3%, respectively; P = 0.776) and the rates of detailed complications between the two groups.

Conclusions

The short-term outcomes of RAMIE is comparable to VAMIE, demonstrating safety and feasibility of RAMIE.