Comparison of robot-assisted esophagectomy and thoracoscopic esophagectomy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

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.

Prognosis of Robot-Assisted Esophagectomy with Thoracic Duct Resection in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The authors' previous study found no significant difference in short-term clinical outcomes between patients undergoing robot-assisted esophagectomy (RAE) with or without thoracic duct resection (TDR). However, the impact of RAE-TDR on long-term prognosis remains unclear.

METHODS

From January 2019 to July 2020, the study prospectively and consecutively enrolled 127 thoracic duct (TD)-preserved and 73 TD-resected patients who underwent standard McKeown RAE surgery. The overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared between these two groups.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up period of 48.6 months, the 3-year OS rates were 70.6% and 70.9% in the TD-preserved and TD-resected group, and the 3-year RFS rates were 61.9% and 55.5%, respectively. The TD-preserved and TD-resected groups did not differ significantly in local-regional (12.6% vs. 15.1%; p = 0.623), distant (23.6% vs. 28.8%; p = 0.422), or mixed (2.4% vs. 4.1%; p = 0.670) recurrence. However, among the eight (11%) patients with TD lymph node (LN) metastasis in the TD-resected group, six patients experienced recurrences (1 local-regional and 5 distant). The patients who had thoracic duct lymph node (TDLN) metastasis experienced significantly worse RFS than those who did not (p = 0.04). Additionally, TDLN metastasis was significantly associated with advanced nodal stage (cN2-3, 6/8; p = 0.001) and bulky tumors (pT3, 7/8; p = 0.028).

CONCLUSION

In ESCC, RAE-TDR does not improve recurrence or survival outcomes. However, identification of TDLN metastasis through TDR carries significant prognostic implications considering its strong association with aggressive tumor biology and inferior oncologic outcomes. Therefore, TDR should not be routinely performed, but its selective application for patients with advanced tumors may provide critical staging information to guide tailored postoperative strategies.

Caseload per Year in Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Narrative Review

Esophageal surgery is deemed one of the most complex visceral operations. There is a well-documented correlation between higher caseload and better outcomes, with hospitals that perform more surgeries experiencing significantly lower mortality rates. The approach to caseload per year varies across different countries within Europe. Germany increased the minimum annual required caseload of complex esophageal surgeries from 10 to 26 starting in 2023. Furthermore, the new regulations present challenges for surgical training and staff recruitment, risking the further fragmentation of training programs. Enhanced regional cooperation is proposed as a solution to ensure comprehensive training. This review explores the benefits of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in improving surgical precision and patient outcomes and aims to evaluate how the caseload per year influences the quality of patient care and the efficacy of surgical training, especially with the integration of advanced robotic techniques.

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.

Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18,187 patients

The role of robotic surgery in the curative-intent treatment of esophageal cancer patients is yet to be defined. To compare short-term outcomes between conventional minimally invasive (cMIE) and robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in esophageal cancer patients. PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were systematically searched. The included studies compared short-term outcomes between cMIE and RAMIE. Individual risk of bias was calculated using the MINORS and RoB2 scales. There were no statistically significant differences between RAMIE and cMIE regarding conversion to open procedure, mean number of harvested lymph nodes in the mediastinum, abdomen and along the right recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN), 30- and 90-day mortality rates, chyle leakage, RLN palsy as well as cardiac and infectious complication rates. Estimated blood loss (MD - 71.78 mL, p < 0.00001), total number of harvested lymph nodes (MD 2.18 nodes, p < 0.0001) and along the left RLN (MD 0.73 nodes, p = 0.03), pulmonary complications (RR 0.70, p = 0.001) and length of hospital stay (MD - 3.03 days, p < 0.0001) are outcomes that favored RAMIE. A significantly shorter operating time (MD 29.01 min, p = 0.004) and a lower rate of anastomotic leakage (RR 1.23, p = 0.0005) were seen in cMIE. RAMIE has indicated to be a safe and feasible alternative to cMIE, with a tendency towards superiority in blood loss, lymph node yield, pulmonary complications and length of hospital stay. There was significant heterogeneity among studies for some of the outcomes measured. Further studies are necessary to confirm these results and overcome current limitations.

Tackling complex thoracic surgical operations with robotic solutions: a narrative review

Background and Objective

The adoption of robotic surgery for general thoracic surgery has rapidly progressed over the last two decades from its application in basic operations to complex pathologies. As such, the purpose of this narrative review is to highlight the collective experience of tackling complex thoracic surgical operations with minimally invasive robotic solutions.

Methods

Electronic searches of PubMed were conducted for each subtopic, using specific keywords and inclusion criteria. Once identified, the articles were screened through the abstract, introduction, results and conclusion for relevancy, and included based on a standard narrative review inclusion criteria.

Key Content and Findings

The role of the robotic approach has increased in thoracic outlet syndrome, chest wall resection, tracheobronchomalacia, airway and sleeve lung surgery, lobectomy after neoadjuvant therapy, complex segmentectomy, giant paraesophageal hernia repair, esophagectomy and esophageal enucleation, mediastinal masses and thymectomy and lung transplantation. Robotic surgery has several advantages when compared to video-assisted and open thoracoscopic surgery. These include better pain control and aesthetic outcome, improved handling of complex anatomy, enhanced access to lymph nodes, and faster recovery rates. Although it is associated with longer operative time, robotic surgery has comparable morbidity rates.

Conclusions

The robotic approach to complex thoracic problems is safe, effective, and associated with improved patient outcomes. To encourage wider adoption of robotic technology, increased training and expanded research efforts are essential, alongside improved worldwide access to this technology.

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.

Minimally invasive surgery for gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: Current evidence and future perspectives

Minimally invasive surgery is increasingly indicated in the management of malignant disease. Although oesophagectomy is a difficult operation, with a long learning curve, there is actually a shift towards the laparoscopic/thoracoscopic/ robotic approach, due to the advantages of visualization, surgeon comfort (robotic surgery) and the possibility of the whole team to see the operation as well as and the operating surgeon. Although currently there are still many controversial topics, about the surgical treatment of patients with gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) adenocarcinoma, such as the type of open or minimally invasive surgical approach, the type of oesophago-gastric resection, the type of lymph node dissection and others, the minimally invasive approach has proven to be a way to reduce postoperative complications of resection, especially by decreasing pulmonary complications. The implementation of new technologies allowed the widening of the range of indications for this type of surgical approach. The short-term and long-term results, as well as the benefits for the patient - reduced surgical trauma, quick and easy recovery - offer this type of surgical treatment the premises for future development. This article reviews the updates and perspectives on the minimally invasive approach for GOJ adenocarcinoma.

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.

Minimally invasive thoracic surgery: robot-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery

Minimally invasive techniques have been widely applied in general thoracic surgery. Compared with video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), due to its theoretic superiority, robotic surgery is challenging the traditional position of VATS. With its unique advantages, including 3D vision and a high-freedom endowrist, it leads to easier lymph node dissection, more convenient blood vessel dissection, a shorter learning curve and competence for the completion of complex surgery. However, as a new surgical technology, the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) still need to be further verified. Thus, in this article, we review and summarize the application of RATS versus VATS in general thoracic surgery.

Robotic-Assisted Esophagectomy: Current Situation and Future Perspectives

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been rapidly spreading worldwide as a novel minimally invasive approach for esophageal cancer. This narrative review aimed to elucidate the current situation and future perspectives of RAMIE for esophageal cancer. References were searched using PubMed and Embase for studies published up to 8 April 2023. Search terms included "esophagectomy" or "esophageal cancer" and "robot" or "robotic" or "robotic-assisted." There are several different uses for the robot in esophagectomy. Overall complications are equivalent or may be less in RAMIE than in open esophagectomy and conventional (thoracoscopic) minimally invasive esophagectomy. Several meta-analyses demonstrated the possibility of RAMIE in reducing pulmonary complications, although the equivalent incidence was observed in two randomized controlled trials. RAMIE may increase the number of dissected lymph nodes, especially in the left recurrent laryngeal nerve area. Long-term outcomes are comparable between the procedures, although further research is required. Further progress in robotic technology combined with artificial intelligence is expected.

Robotic Versus Conventional Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To give a comprehensive review of the literature comparing perioperative outcomes and long-term survival with robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) versus minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND

Curative minimally invasive surgical treatment for esophageal cancer includes RAMIE and conventional MIE. It remains controversial whether RAMIE is comparable to MIE.

METHODS

This review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021260963). A systematic search of databases was conducted. Perioperative outcomes and long-term survival were analyzed and subgroup analysis was conducted. Cumulative meta-analysis was performed to track therapeutic effectiveness.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were included and a total of 2932 patients (92.88% squamous cell carcinoma, 29.83% neoadjuvant therapy, and 38.93% stage III-IV), 1418 underwent RAMIE and 1514 underwent MIE, were analyzed. The number of total lymph nodes (LNs) [23.35 (95% CI: 21.41-25.29) vs 21.98 (95% CI: 20.31-23.65); mean difference (MD) = 1.18; 95% CI: 0.06-2.30; P =0.04], abdominal LNs [9.05 (95% CI: 8.16-9.94) vs 7.75 (95% CI: 6.62-8.88); MD = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.19-1.89; P =0.02] and LNs along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve [1.74 (95% CI: 1.04-2.43) vs 1.34 (95% CI: 0.32-2.35); MD = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.09-0.35; P <0.001] were significantly higher in the RAMIE group. RAMIE is associated with a lower incidence of pneumonia [9.61% (95% CI: 7.38%-11.84%) vs 14.74% (95% CI: 11.62%-18.15%); odds ratio = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.58-0.93; P =0.01]. Meanwhile, other perioperative outcomes, such as operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, 30/90-day mortality, and R0 resection, showed no significant difference between the two groups. Regarding long-term survival, the 3-year overall survival was similar in the two groups, whereas patients undergoing RAMIE had a higher rate of 3-year disease-free survival compared with the MIE group [77.98% (95% CI: 72.77%-82.43%) vs 70.65% (95% CI: 63.87%-77.00%); odds ratio = 1.42; 95% CI: 1.11-1.83; P =0.006]. A cumulative meta-analysis conducted for each outcome demonstrated relatively stable effects in the two groups. Analyses of each subgroup showed similar overall outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

RAMIE is a safe and feasible alternative to MIE in the treatment of resectable esophageal cancer with comparable perioperative outcomes and seems to indicate a possible superiority in LNs dissection in the abdominal cavity, and LNs dissected along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve and 3-year disease-free survival in particular in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Further randomized studies are needed to better evaluate the long-term benefits of RAMIE compared with MIE.

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.

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.

Selection of minimally invasive surgical approaches for treating esophageal cancer

Minimally invasive esophagectomy has gradually been accepted as an active treatment option for surgery of esophageal cancer. However, there is no consensus about how to perform the procedures in the thoracic and abdominal phase including anastomosis in the neck (McKeown) or chest (Ivor Lewis), VATS, robotic‐assisted or reduced port approaches or various endoscopic abrasion techniques. Further studies to investigate the roles of these novel techniques are required to treat the various patient populations.

Advanced Robotic Surgery: Liver, Pancreas, and Esophagus - The State of the Art?

Background

The trend in performing robotic-assisted operations in visceral surgery has been increasing in the last decade, also reaching the challenging field of hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal surgery. Nevertheless, solid data about advantages and disadvantages of the robotic approach are still missing. The aim of this review is to analyze the benefit and impact of robotic surgery in the field of hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal surgery, focusing on the comparison with the conventional laparoscopic or open approach.

Summary

The well-known advantages of laparoscopic surgery in comparison to the open approach are also valid for robotic surgery, with the addition of a 3D-view camera, wristed instrumentation, and an ergonomic console. On the other hand, the use of a robotic system leads to longer operating time and higher costs. Randomized controlled trials comparing the robotic approach with the laparoscopic one are still missing.

Key Message

Recent meta-analyses show promising results of the usage of robotic systems in advanced surgical procedures, like hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal resections. Further randomized studies are needed to validate the postulated benefit.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted, Video-Assisted, and Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

The utilization of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal cancer is increasing, despite limited data comparing RAMIE with other surgical approaches.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the literature for clinical outcomes of RAMIE compared with video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE) and open esophagectomy (OE).

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and Embase databases from January 1, 2013, to May 6, 2020, was performed.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies that compared RAMIE with VAMIE and/or OE for cancer were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline, data were extracted by independent reviewers. A random-effects meta-analysis of 9 propensity-matched studies was performed for the RAMIE vs VAMIE comparison only. A narrative synthesis of RAMIE vs VAMIE and OE was performed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The outcomes of interest were intraoperative outcomes (ie, estimated blood loss [EBL], operative time, lymph node [LN] harvest), short-term outcomes (anastomotic leak, recurrent laryngeal nerve [RLN] palsy, pulmonary and total complications, and 90-day mortality), and long-term oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, 21 studies (2 randomized clinical trials, 11 propensity-matched studies, and 8 unmatched studies) with 9355 patients were included. A meta-analysis was performed with 9 propensity-matched studies comparing RAMIE with VAMIE. The random-effects pooled estimate found an adjusted risk difference (RD) of -0.06 (95% CI, -0.11 to -0.01) favoring fewer pulmonary complications with RAMIE. There was no evidence of differences between RAMIE and VAMIE in LN harvest (mean difference [MD], -1.1 LN; 95% CI, -2.45 to 0.25 LNs), anastomotic leak (RD, 0.0; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.03), EBL (MD, -6.25 mL; 95% CI, -18.26 to 5.77 mL), RLN palsy (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.10), total complications (RD, 0.05; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.11), or 90-day mortality (RD, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.0). There was low certainty of evidence that RAMIE was associated with a longer disease-free survival compared with VAMIE. For OE comparisons (data not pooled), RAMIE was associated with a longer operative time, decreased EBL, and less pulmonary and total complications.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, RAMIE had similar outcomes as VAMIE but was associated with fewer pulmonary complications compared with VAMIE and OE. Studies on long-term functional and cancer outcomes are needed.

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.

Robotic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a propensity-score matched analysis

We aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between robotic esophagectomy (RE) and open esophagectomy (OE) in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Among the patients who underwent esophagectomy for ESCC from 2008 to 2017, 402 patients (n = 178 in RE and n = 224 in OE) were enrolled and, after propensity-score matching, 136 patients in each group were selected. The total rate of complications was comparable, whereas the rate of major complications was higher in OE (p < 0.01). Hospital stay was longer in OE (15 days in OE vs. 13 days in RE; p = 0.03) with a comparable early mortality rate. Complete resection was equally achieved in both groups (96.3% in RE vs. 97.0% in OE; p = 0.74). The numbers of retrieved lymph nodes (LN) were significantly higher in RE (42.8 in RE vs 35.3 in OE; p < 0.01), especially for LNs in the left lower cervical paratracheal, both recurrent laryngeal nerves, and paraesophageal area. The 5-year overall survival rate was higher in RE (75.1% in RE vs. 57.9% in OE; p = 0.02), whereas, the freedom from recurrence was comparable between the two groups (68.8% in RE vs. 54.7% in OE; p = 0.15). Notably, RE achieved a significantly higher rate of 5-year freedom from regional nodal recurrence than OE (81.4% in RE vs. 62.7% in OE, p = 0.03). RE contributed to a lower rate of major complications and shorter hospital stays. Furthermore, RE showed increased long-term overall survival and freedom from regional LN recurrence rates, with a higher yield of LN dissection compared to OE.

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.

Robotic Esophagectomy. A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes

Background: Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy is demonstrated to be related with a facilitation in thoracoscopic procedure. To give an update on the state of art of robotic esophagectomy for cancr a systematic review with meta-analysis has been performed. Methods: a search of the studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic or open esophagectomy was performed trough the medical libraries, with the search string "robotic and (oesophagus OR esophagus OR esophagectomy OR oesophagectomy)". Outcomes were: postoperative complications rate (anastomotic leakage, bleeding, wound infection, pneumonia, recurrent laryngeal nerves paralysis, chylotorax, mortality), intraoperative outcomes (mean blood loss, operative time and conversion), oncologic outcomes (harvested nodes, R0 resection, recurrence) and recovery outcomes (length of hospital stay). Results: Robotic approach is superior to open surgery in terms of blood loss p = 0.001, wound infection rate, p = 0.002, pneumonia rate, p = 0.030 and mean number of harvested nodes, p < 0.0001 and R0 resection rate, p = 0.043. Similarly, robotic approach is superior to conventional laparoscopy in terms of mean number of harvested nodes, p = 0.001 pneumonia rate, p = 0.003. Conclusions: robotic surgery could be considered superior to both open surgery and conventional laparoscopy. These encouraging results should promote the diffusion of the robotic surgery, with the creation of randomized trials to overcome selection bias.

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.

[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.

Thoracoscopy-Assisted Esophagectomy vs Transhiatal Esophagectomy for Carcinoma Esophagus: a Prospective Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) was popularized to reduce the morbidity of esophagectomy. Thoracoscopy-assisted esophagectomy (TAE) offers esophageal dissection under magnified vision. This study compares the short-term morbidity and oncological outcome following TAE and THE for esophageal carcinoma.

METHODOLOGY

This is a prospective comparative (January 2017-May 2018) study between TAE and THE for >cT1bN1 esophageal carcinoma. After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT), responders and patients with stable diseases were subjected to surgery. Thoracoscopy in esophagectomy was performed in prone position. Follow-up duration was at least 4 weeks post-discharge.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients of esophageal carcinoma undergoing TAE (n = 18) or THE (n = 15) were included. Common locations of tumor were lower third of esophagus (72.7%) and esophagogastric junction (18.2%). Majority (73.3%) had squamous cell carcinoma. Median interval between NACRT and surgery was 13 weeks. The mean operating time was significantly more with TAE than THE (292.5 vs 207.33 min, p = 0.005). R0 resection rate in TAE was 83.3% compared with 66.7% in THE. There was no difference in the lymph node yield. There was non-significant trend towards lower incidence of major pulmonary complication (66.7% vs 80.0%), cardiac complications (27.8% vs 46.7%), anastomotic leak (27.8% vs 46.7%), recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (16.7% vs 20.0%), and overall major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) (44.4% vs 66.7%) in TAE than THE. The chyle leak was observed more in TAE (16.7%) than THE (6.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

TAE achieved higher R0 resection rate and better short-term morbidity than THE. Enrollment of small number of cases in the study precluded statistical significance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI registration no: CTRI/2018/05/013880) in 14-05-2018.

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.

Multicenter Experience in Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy - a Comparison of Hybrid and Totally Robot-Assisted Techniques

BACKGROUND

Oncological esophageal surgery has evolved significantly in the last decades. From open esophagectomy over (hybrid) minimally invasive surgery, nowadays, robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) approaches are applied. Current techniques require an analysis of possible advantages and disadvantages indicating the direction towards a novel gold standard.

METHODS

Robot-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomies, performed in the period from April 2017 to June 2019 in five German centers (Berlin, Cologne, Hamburg, Kiel, Mainz), were included in this study. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative parameters were assessed. Cases were grouped for hybrid (H-RAMIE) versus totally robot-assisted (T-RAMIE) approaches. Postoperative parameters and complications were compared using risk ratios.

RESULTS

A total of 175 operations were performed as T-RAMIE and 67 as H-RAMIE. Patient age (median age 62 years) and sex (83.1% male) were similarly distributed in both groups. Median duration of esophagectomy was significantly lower in the T-RAMIE group (385 versus 427 min, p < 0.001). The risks of "overall morbidity" (32.0 versus 47.8%; risk ratio [RR], 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5, 1.1-2.1; p = 0.026), "anastomotic leak" (10.3 versus 22.4%; RR, CI: 2.2, 1.2-4.1; p = 0.020), and "respiratory failure" (1.1 versus 7.5%; RR, CI: 6.5, 1.3-32.9; p = 0.019) were significantly higher in case of H-RAMIE.

CONCLUSIONS

In the five participating German centers, T-RAMIE was the preferred procedure (72.3% of operations). In comparison to H-RAMIE, T-RAMIE was associated with a significantly reduced risk of postoperative morbidity, anastomotic leak, and respiratory failure as well as a significantly reduced time necessary for esophagectomy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Adequate Lymphadenectomy as a Quality Measure in Esophageal Cancer: Is there an Association with Treatment Approach?

BACKGROUND

The national comprehensive cancer network defines adequate lymphadenectomy as evaluation of ≥ 15 lymph nodes in esophageal cancer. However, varying thresholds have been suggested following neoadjuvant therapy.

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to (1) explore trends in adequate lymphadenectomy rates over time; (2) evaluate unadjusted lymphadenectomy yield by treatment characteristics; and (3) identify independent factors associated with adequate lymphadenectomy.

METHODS

The National Cancer Data Base was used to identify patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer from 2004 to 2015. Adequate lymphadenectomy trends over time were evaluated using the Cochrane-Armitage test, and lymph node yield by treatment approach was compared using the Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Associations with treatment factors were assessed by multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 24,413 patients, 9919 (40.6%) had adequate lymphadenectomy. Meeting the nodal threshold increased over time (52.6% in 2015 vs. 26.0% in 2004; p < 0.01). Lymph node yield did not differ based on neoadjuvant therapy (median 12 [interquartile range 7-19] with and without neoadjuvant therapy; p = 0.44). Adequate lymphadenectomy was not associated with neoadjuvant therapy (40.5% vs. 40.8%, odds ratio [OR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-1.07), but was associated with surgical approach (52.7% of laparoscopic cases, OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.06-1.56; 61.2% of robotic cases, OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.34-2.19, vs. 43.5% of open cases), and increasing annual esophagectomy volume (55.6% in the fourth quartile vs. 32.6% in the first quartile; OR 3.57, 95% CI 2.35-5.43).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increases over time, only 50% of patients undergo adequate lymphadenectomy during esophageal cancer resection. Adequate lymphadenectomy was not associated with neoadjuvant therapy. Focusing on surgical approach and esophagectomy volume may further improve adequate lymphadenectomy rates.

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.

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.

Current Issues in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was first introduced in the 1990s. Currently, it is a widely accepted surgical approach for the treatment of esophageal cancer, as it is an oncologically sound procedure; its advantages when compared to open procedures, including reduction in postoperative complications, reduction in the length of hospital stay, and improvement in quality of life, are well documented. However, debates are still ongoing about the safety and efficacy of MIE. The present review focuses on some of the current issues related to conventional MIE and robot-assisted MIE based on evidence from the current literature.

Influence of Induction Therapy on Robot-Assisted McKeown Esophagectomy for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The present study was to investigate the influence of induction therapy on robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy (RAME) with radical superior mediastinal lymph node dissection for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in a high-volume cancer center.

METHODS

A consecutive patient cohort who underwent RAME from January 2017 to May 2019 were reviewed. The perioperative outcomes of patients with induction therapy were compared with those who had surgery alone.

RESULTS

In total, 118 patients underwent RAME during the study period. The average age was 59.1 ± 7.5 years, including 100 male and 18 female patients. Thirty patients (25.4%) had induction therapy, and 88 patients did not receive induction therapy. The average age of the patients treated with induction therapy was younger than those received surgery alone (56.8 ± 6.1 vs. 59.5 ± 7.6 years, p = 0.039). There were no statistically significant differences in the mean operative time and estimated blood loss between both groups. Complications occurred in 46 (39.0%) patients. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of any complications between both groups (p = 0.951). There were no deaths in either group. The hospital stay was prolonged in patients with induction therapy than those in the surgery-alone group (20.8 ± 8.9 vs. 16.8 ± 6.0, p = 0.048). There was no statistically significant difference in the average number of dissected lymph nodes in total and both recurrent laryngeal nerve stations between both groups.

CONCLUSION

For patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, induction therapy has no influence on RAME with radical superior mediastinal lymph node dissection.

Assessment of Quality Outcomes and Learning Curve for Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive McKeown Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify the results of the quality assessment and the learning curve of robot-assisted minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy (RAMIE-MK).

METHODS

The study retrospectively reviewed the data of 400 consecutive patients with esophageal cancer who underwent RAMIE-MK by a single surgeon from November 2015 to March 2019. Cumulative summation analysis of the learning curve was performed. The patients were divided into decile cohorts of 40 cases to minimize demographic deviations and to maximize the power of detecting statistically significant changes in performance.

RESULTS

The 90-day mortality rate for all the patients was 0.5% (2 cases). The authors' experience was divided into the ascending phase (40 cases), the plateau phase (175 cases), and the descending phase (185 cases). After 40 cases, significant improvements in operative time (328 vs. 251 min; P = 0.019), estimated blood loss (350 vs. 200 ml; P = 0.031), and conversion rates (12.5% vs. 2.5%; P < 0.001) were observed. After 80 cases, a decrease in the rates of anastomotic leakage (22.5% vs. 8.1%; P = 0.001) and vocal cord palsy (31.3% vs. 18.4%; P = 0.024) was observed. The number of harvested lymph nodes increased after 40 cases (13 vs. 23; P < 0.001), especially for lymph nodes along the recurrent laryngeal nerve (3.0 vs. 6.0; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The learning phase of RAMIE-MK consists of 40 cases, and quality outcomes can be improved after 80 procedures. Several turning points related to the optimization of surgical outcomes can be used as benchmarks for surgeons performing RAMIE-MK.

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.

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.

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Consensus Statement

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly performed in various ways. The lack of international definitions and nomenclature makes accurate comparison of outcomes difficult.

METHODS

An international, multispecialty consensus-writing committee constructed definitions and nomenclature for MIE. After a PubMed search, vetting, and review with all authors, a consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The proposed definition for MIE is an operation "that removes part or all of the esophagus, does not retract, lift, spread or remove any part of the chest or abdominal wall and the surgeon's and assistant's vision of the operative field is via a monitor, the patient's tissue is manipulated only by instruments that are controlled by the operating surgeon or team, except for during the neck portion if used." A flexible nomenclature is proposed that attempts to describe current and future operations and systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Definitions and nomenclature for MIE are needed to ensure that future studies accurately compare results and outcomes of similar operations. Nomenclatures allow surgeons, researchers, and patients from different cultures to use a common language to facilitate communication and compare. This process is required in order to improve patient outcomes globally to drive adoption of best of practice, yet is lacking for MIE.

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.