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

Minimally invasive vs open vs hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal carcinoma has emerged as the contemporary alternative to conventional laparoscopic minimally invasive (LMIE), hybrid (HE) and open (OE) surgical approaches. No single study has compared all four approaches with a view to postoperative outcomes. A systematic search of electronic databases was undertaken. A network meta-analysis was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-network meta-analysis guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using R and Shiny. Seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 1063 patients were included. Overall, 32.9% of patients underwent OE (350/1063), 11.0% underwent HE (117/1063), 34.0% of patients underwent LMIE (361/1063), and 22.1% of patients underwent RAMIE (235/1063). OE had the lowest anastomotic leak rate 7.7% (27/350), while LMIE had the lowest pulmonary 10.8% (39/361), cardiac 0.56% (1/177) complications, re-intervention rates 5.08% (12/236), 90-day mortality 1.05% (2/191), and shortest length of hospital stay (mean 11.25 days). RAMIE displayed the lowest 30-day mortality rate at 0.80% (2/250). There was a significant increase in pulmonary complications for those undergoing OE (OR 3.63 [95% confidence interval: 1.4-9.77]) when compared to RAMIE. LMIE is a safe and feasible option for esophagectomy when compared to OE and HE. The upcoming RCTs will provide further data to make a more robust interrogation of the surgical outcomes following RAMIE compared to conventional open surgery to determine equipoise or superiority of each approach as the era of minimally invasive esophagectomy continues to evolve (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Registration: CRD42023438790).

Robotic-Assisted Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy

Robotic-assisted surgery is a safe and effective approach to minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Outcomes are optimized when surgeons are familiar with the fundamentals of minimally invasive surgery of the esophagus and after gaining sufficient experience with robotic surgical techniques.

Technical feasibility and oncological outcomes of robotic esophagectomy compared with conventional thoracoscopic esophagectomy for clinical T3 or T4 locally advanced esophageal cancer: a propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is the first-line approach for esophageal cancer; however, there has recently been a paradigm shift toward robotic esophagectomy (RE). We investigated the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent RE compared with those of patients who underwent conventional minimally invasive thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) for locally advanced cT3 or cT4 esophageal cancer using a propensity-matched analysis.

METHODS

Overall, 342 patients with locally advanced cT3 or cT4 esophageal cancer underwent transthoracic esophagectomy with total mediastinal lymph node dissection between 2018 and 2022. The propensity-matched analysis was performed to assign the patients to either RE or TE by covariates of histological type, tumor location, and clinical N factor.

RESULTS

Overall, 87 patients were recruited in each of the RE and TE groups according to the propensity-matched analysis. The total complication rate and the rates of the three major complications (recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis, anastomotic leakage, and pneumonia) were not significantly different between the RE and TE groups. However, the peak C-reactive protein concentration on postoperative day 3, rate of surgical site infection, and intensive care unit length of stay after surgery were significantly shorter in the RE group than in the TE group. No significant differences were observed in the harvested total and mediastinal lymph nodes. The total operation time was significantly longer in the RE group, while the thoracic operation time was shorter in the RE group than in the TE group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the recurrence rate of oncological outcomes after surgery.

CONCLUSION

RE may facilitate early recovery after esophagectomy with total mediastinal lymph node dissection and has the same technical feasibility and oncological outcomes as TE.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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.

Robotic versus thoraco-laparoscopic minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, a matched-pair single-center cohort analysis

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is becoming more widespread with a documented improvement in postoperative morbidity based on level I evidence. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal MIE approach, conventional thoracoscopy/laparoscopy vs robotics as well as the ideal anastomotic technique. All patients who underwent MIE via an Ivor Lewis approach with a side-to-side stapled anastomosis were included. The thoracoscopy-laparoscopy (TL) group was compared to the robotic group with respect to perioperative outcomes using the entire cohorts and after 1:1 propensity score matching. Comparisons were made using the Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact tests. Between July 2013 and November 2020, 72 TL and 67 robotic Ivor Lewis MIE were performed. After comparing the two unadjusted cohorts and 51 propensity matched pairs, there was a decrease in Clavien-Dindo Grade 2 or above complications in the robotic vs TL group (59.7% vs 41.8% [P = 0.042], (62.7% vs 39.2% [P = 0.029]), respectively. In both analyses, there was a reduction in hospital length of stay (median of 8 vs 7 days, P < 0.001) and a trend toward less anastomotic leaks in the robotic group (Unadjusted: 12.5 vs 3% [P = 0.057], Propensity-matched analysis: 13.7% vs 3.9% [P = 0.16]), respectively. A clinically significant decrease in overall morbidity, cardiac complications and hospital length of stay was observed in the robotic Ivor Lewis cohort when compared with the TL group at a high volume MIE program. Side-to-side stapled thoracic anastomoses utilizing a robotic platform provides the best outcomes in this single institution experience.

Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive esophagectomies versus open esophagectomies: an umbrella review

Traditionally, esophageal oncological resections have been performed via open approaches with well-documented levels of morbidity and mortality complicating the postoperative course. In contemporary terms, minimally invasive approaches have garnered sustained support in all areas of surgery, and there has been an exponential adaptation of this technology in upper GI surgery with the advent of laparoscopic and robotic techniques. The current literature, while growing, is inconsistent in reporting on the benefits of minimally invasive esophagectomies (MIEs) and this makes it difficult to ascertain best practice. The objective of this review was to critically appraise the current evidence addressing the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of MIEs versus open esophagectomies. A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching nine electronic databases to identify any systematic reviews published on this topic and recommended Joanna Briggs Institute approach to critical appraisal, study selection, data extraction and data synthesis was used to report the findings. A total of 13 systematic reviews of moderate to good quality encompassing 143 primary trials and 36,763 patients were included in the final synthesis. Eleven reviews examined safety parameters and found a generalized benefit of MIE. Efficacy was evaluated by eight systematic reviews and found each method to be equivalent. There were limited data to judiciously appraise cost-effectiveness as this was only evaluated in one review involving a single trial. There is improved safety and equivalent efficacy associated with MIE when compared with open esophagectomy. Cost-effectiveness of MIE cannot be sufficiently supported at this point in time. Further studies, especially those focused on cost-effectiveness are needed to strengthen the existing evidence to inform policy makers on feasibility of increased assimilation of this technology into clinical practice.

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

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

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.

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

Simple Summary

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

Abstract

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

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

Simple Summary

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

Abstract

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Impact of prior thoracoscopic experience on the learning curve of robotic McKeown esophagectomy: a multidimensional analysis

PURPOSE

Left upper mediastinal lymph node dissection (UMLND)-a technically demanding step of McKeown esophagectomy-is frequently complicated by recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) palsy. Under the hypothesis that robotic esophagectomy (RE) could increase the safety and feasibility of UMLND, we retrospectively investigated the degree to which a pre-existing experience in video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (VATE) may affect the learning curves of this critical part of RE.

METHODS

Surgeon A had previously performed > 150 VATE procedures before transitioning to RE. While surgeon B had previously assisted to 50 RE, his pre-existing VATE experience consisted of less than five procedures. A total of 103 and 76 McKeown RE procedures were performed by surgeons A and B, respectively. The learning curve of left UMLND for each surgeon was examined using the cumulative sum method.

RESULTS

The inflection point of RLN palsy for surgeon A occurred at patient 31. While the nerve palsy rate decreased from 32.3 to 4.2% (p < 0.001), the number of nodes harvested during left UMLND did not appreciably change. Surgeon B showed a bimodal learning curve for RLN palsy with primary and secondary inflection points at patients 15 and 49, respectively. The RLN palsy rate initially decreased from 66.7% (patients 1-15) to 14.7% (patients 16-49), followed by an additional decline to 3.7% (patients 50-76). However, the number of nodes harvested during left UMLND showed a downtrend which was paralleled by decreasing rates of RLN palsy. These results indicate that surgeon B has not yet reached an ideal balance between an extensive UMLND and nerve protection.

CONCLUSION

The pre-existing VATE experience seems to affect the learning curves of left UMLND during RE.

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.

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

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

Outcomes of robotic esophagectomy

Esophagectomy has long been considered the standard of care for early-stage (≤ T2N0) esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), using a combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approach, was first performed in the 1990s and showed significant improvements over open approaches. Refinement of MIE arrived in the form of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in 2004. MIE is a challenging procedure for which consensus on optimal technique is still elusive. Although nonrobotic MIE confers significant advantages over open approaches, MIE remains associated with stubbornly high rates of complications, including pneumonia, aspiration, arrhythmia, anastomotic leakage, surgical site infection, and vocal cord palsy. RAMIE was envisioned to improve operative-associated morbidity while achieving equivalent or superior oncologic outcomes to nonrobotic MIE. However, owing to RAMIE’s significant upfront costs, steep learning curve, and other requirements, adoption remains less than widespread and convincing evidence supporting its use from well-designed studies is lacking. In this review, we compare operative, oncologic, and quality-of-life outcomes between open esophagectomy, nonrobotic MIE, and RAMIE. Although RAMIE remains a relatively new and underexplored modality, several studies in the literature show that it is feasible and results in similar outcomes to other MIE approaches. Moreover, RAMIE has been associated with favorable patient satisfaction and quality of life.

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.

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

Introduction

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

Presentation of case

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

Discussion

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

Conclusion

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

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.

Incidence of Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Palsy in Robot-Assisted Versus Conventional Minimally Invasive McKeown Esophagectomy in Prone Position: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy with lymphadenectomy is the principal treatment for localized esophageal cancer. Conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (C-MIE) in prone position has spread worldwide as it is less invasive. However, its efficacy remains controversial. Robot-assisted MIE (RAMIE) can have more advantages than C-MIE. Therefore, the current study aimed to validate whether RAMIE is associated with lower incidence of left recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) palsy compared with C-MIE in prone position.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In total, 404 patients with esophageal carcinoma underwent MIE (353 C-MIEs and 51 RAMIEs) in prone position at Kobe University between 2010 and 2020. Then, propensity score matching was performed, and results showed that 51 patients should be included in each group. Thereafter, the perioperative outcomes between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

The RAMIE group had a significantly longer operative time than the C-MIE group (P < 0.0001). However, the number of lymph nodes resected along the left RLN was similar in both groups. Moreover, the incidence of left RLN palsy was significantly lower in the RAMIE group than in the C-MIE [Clavien-Dindo classification grade II; 0 (0%) versus 32 (9%), P = 0.022 in entire cohort, and 0 (0%) versus 5 (10%), P = 0.022 in matched cohort. Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group definitions type I; 8 (16%) versus 101 (29%), P = 0.041 in entire cohort and 8 (16%) versus 18 (35%) in matched cohort, P = 0.023].

CONCLUSION

RAMIE is superior to C-MIE in prone position in decreasing the incidence of left RLN palsy.

Robotics and minimally invasive esophageal surgery

The robotic platform has permeated esophageal surgery both in the abdominal and thoracic approaches. The most widely studied entities include achalasia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hiatal hernia and esophageal cancer. A literature review of robotic surgeries for the management of the above mentioned disorders is presented. Data is limited to meta-analyses, case series, or small prospective trials in the different indications. One exception is a randomized controlled trial looking at outcomes in esophageal cancer being managed with a hybrid robotic versus open approach. Overall differences when comparing laparoscopic or thoracoscopic surgery to robotic are few. These differences are best highlighted in the achalasia and esophageal cancer literature. There are less intraoperative mucosal injuries in robotic Heller myotomy. A large meta analysis found a rate of 1% versus 24.5% mucosal injury rate favoring the robotic versus laparoscopic Heller myotomy methods. With respect to esophagectomy data, there is slightly less vocal cord paralysis in the robotic versus MIE data, with a P value of 0.044. However, length of stay, intraoperative bleeding and major morbidity are similar across the various indications. Robotic esophageal surgery is a safe alternative to laparoscopic/thoracoscopic techniques. Further large-scale randomized trials are needed to fully ascertain if it yields superior outcomes.

[Surgical treatment of esophageal cancer-Indicators for quality in diagnostics and treatment]

BACKGROUND

Within the framework of the quality initiative of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV) a review article was compiled based on a systematic literature search. Recommendations for the current diagnostics and treatment of esophageal cancer were also elaborated.

METHODS

The systematic literature search was carried out in March 2019 according to the PRISMA criteria using the MEDLINE databank. The recommendations were formulated based on a consensus in the DGAV.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Operations below the currently valid minimum quantity threshold should no longer be carried out. There are many indications that the minimum quantity in Germany should be raised to ≥20 resections/year/hospital in order to comprehensively improve the quality. Prehabilitation programs with endurance, strength and intensive breathing training as well as nutritional therapy improve patient outcome. The current treatment of esophageal cancer is stage-dependent and incorporates endoscopic resection of (sub)mucosal low-risk tumors (T1m1-3 or T1sm1 low risk), primary esophagectomy of submucosal high-risk tumors (T1a), submucosal cancer (T1sm2-3) and T2N0 tumors, multimodal treatment with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy and operations for advanced stages. Esophagectomy is nowadays carried out in one stage as a so-called hybrid procedure (laparoscopy and muscle-preserving thoracotomy) or as a total minimally invasive operation (laparoscopy and thoracoscopy).

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.

Minimal Invasive Esophagectomy-a New Dawn of EsophagealSurgery

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

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy 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.

Prognostic risk factors for respiratory failure after esophagectomy

Background

Esophagectomy is a high-risk surgical procedure with significant postoperative morbidity and mortality. Respiratory failure is one of the most common complications after esophageal cancer surgery. The purpose of this study was to explore risk factors that affect the recovery of respiratory failure in this kind of patients.

Methods

Totally 2,360 patients underwent esophagectomies with cervical anastomosis or intrathoracic anastomosis in our center from January 2012 to December 2017. Among them, 130 patients with respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation were included in the study. The Spearman’s rank correlation test and Mann-Whitney U test were performed to identify the influential factors for the duration of mechanical ventilation.

Results

Most patients (81.5%) in this study recovered in the first two weeks of mechanical ventilation, the average duration of mechanical ventilation was 10.1 days. Statistical analysis indicated that lung function test parameters such as FEV₁/FVC ratio and RV/TLC ratio could have significant influence on the duration of mechanical ventilation. The abnormally increased FEV₁/FVC ratio and RV/TLC ratio could obviously prolong the ventilation duration. Old age, thrombocytopenia, the elevated creatinine, C-reactive protein (CRP) and lactate could also significantly lengthen the duration of mechanical ventilation.

Conclusions

Abnormally increased FEV₁/FVC ratio and RV/TLC ratio as well as old age, thrombocytopenia, elevated creatinine, CRP and blood lactate were found to be risk factors for the recovery of patients with respiratory failure after esophagectomies.

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.

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.

Outcomes of robotic esophagectomies for esophageal cancer by hospital volume: an analysis of the national cancer database

BACKGROUND

Robotic minimally invasive esophagectomies (RMIE) have been associated with superior outcomes; however, it is unclear if these are specific to robotic technique or are present only at high-volume institutions. We hypothesize that low-volume RMIE centers would have inferior outcomes.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) identified patients receiving RMIE from 2010 to 2016. Based on the total number of RMIE performed by each hospital system, the lowest quartile performed ≤ 9 RMIE over the study period. Ninety-day mortality, number of lymph nodes evaluated, margins status, unplanned readmissions, length of stay (LOS), and overall survival were compared. Regression models were used to account for confounding.

RESULTS

1565 robotic esophagectomies were performed by 212 institutions. 173 hospitals performed ≤ 9 RMIE (totaling 478 operations over the study period, 30.5% of RMIE) and 39 hospitals performed > 9 RMIE (1087 operations, 69.5%). Hospitals performing > 9 RMIE were more likely to be academic centers (90.4% vs 66.2%, p < 0.001), have patients with advanced tumor stage (65.3% vs 59.8%, p = 0.049), andadministered preoperative radiation (72.8% vs 66.3%, p = 0.010). There were no differences based on demographics, nodal stage, or usage of preoperative chemotherapy. On multivariable regressions, hospitals performing ≤ 9 RMIE were associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing a 90-day mortality, a reduced number of lymph nodes evaluated, and a longer LOS; however, there was no association with rates of positive margins or unplanned readmissions. Median overall survival was decreased at institutions performing ≤ 9 RMIE (37.3 vs 51.5 months, p < 0.001). Multivariable Cox regression demonstrated an association with poor survival comparing hospitals performing ≤ 9 to > 9 RMIE (HR 1.327, p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

Many robotic esophagectomies occur at institutions which performed relatively few RMIE and were associated with inferior short- and long-term outcomes. These data argue for regionalization of robotic esophagectomies or enhanced training in lower volume hospitals.

Recent advances in minimally invasive esophagectomy for squamous esophageal cancer

Over the past decade there has been tremendous development in the clinical application of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for the treatment of squamous esophageal carcinoma. The major challenges in the performance of MIE include limitations in visualization and manipulation within the confined, rigid thoracic cavity; the need for adequate patient positioning and anesthetic techniques to accommodate the surgical exposure; and changes in the surgical steps for achieving radical nodal dissection, especially for the superior mediastinum. The surgical procedure for MIE is more and more standardized, and there is an increasing practice of MIE worldwide. Randomized trials and meta-analyses have confirmed the advantages of MIE over open esophagectomy, including a significantly lower rate of complications and shorter hospital stays. The recent application of robotics technologies for MIE has further enhanced the quality and safety of the surgical dissection, while intraoperative nerve monitoring has contributed to a lower rate of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. With the application of new technologies, we expect further improvement in surgical outcomes for MIE in the treatment of squamous esophageal cancer.

Comparative outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a propensity score-weighted analysis

Robots are increasingly used in minimally invasive surgery. We evaluated the clinical benefits of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in comparison with the conventional open esophageal surgery. From 2012 to 2016, 371 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma underwent an Ivor Lewis or McKeown procedure at our institution. Of these, 130 patients underwent laparoscopic gastric conduit formation followed by RAMIE, whereas 241 patients underwent conventional esophageal surgery, including laparotomy and open esophagectomy (OE). We compared the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of these patients using the propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting technique (IPTW). Among the early outcomes, the OE group showed a higher incidence of pneumonia (P = 0.035) and a higher requirement for vasopressors (P = 0.001). Regarding the long-term outcomes, all-cause mortality was significantly higher (P = 0.001) and disease-free survival was lower (P = 0.006) in the OE group. Wound-related problems also occurred more frequently in the OE group (P = 0.020) during the long-term follow-up. There was no statistical intergroup difference in the recurrence rates (P = 0.191). The Cox proportional-hazard analysis demonstrated that wound problems (HR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02-0.57; P = 0.017), pneumonia (HR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06-0.68; P = 0.019), and use of vasopressors (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.08-0.25; P = 0.001) were independent predictors of mortality. RAMIE could be a better surgical option for selected patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

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.