Continuously sutured versus linear-stapled anastomosis in robot-assisted hybrid Ivor Lewis esophageal surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a single-center cohort study

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 quality of life after hybrid robot-assisted and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in a single center: a comparative analysis

PURPOSE

Due to improved survival of esophageal cancer patients, long-term quality of life (QoL) is increasingly gaining importance. The aim of this study is to compare QoL outcomes between open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (Open-E) and a hybrid approach including laparotomy and a robot-assisted thoracic phase (hRob-E). Additionally, a standard group of healthy individuals serves as reference.

METHODS

With a median follow-up of 36 months after hRob-E (n = 28) and 40 months after Open-E (n = 43), patients' QoL was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QoL Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and the EORTC Esophagus specific QoL questionnaire 18 (QLQ-OES18).

RESULTS

Patients showed similar clinical-pathological characteristics, but hRob-E patients had significantly higher ASA scores at surgery (p < 0.001). Patients and healthy controls reported similar global health status and emotional and cognitive functions. However, physical functioning of Open-E patients was significantly reduced compared to healthy controls (p = 0.019). Operated patients reported reduced role and social functioning, fatigue, nausea and vomiting, dyspnea, and diarrhea. A trend towards a better pain score after hRob-E compared to Open-E emerged (p = 0.063). Regarding QLQ-OES18, hRob-E- and Open-E-treated patients similarly reported eating problems, reflux, and troubles swallowing saliva.

CONCLUSIONS

The global health status is not impaired after esophagectomy. Despite higher ASA scores, QoL of hRob-E patients is similar to that of patients operated with Open-E. Moreover, patients after hRob-E appear to have a better score regarding physical functioning and a better pain profile than patients after Open-E, indicating a benefit of minimally invasive surgery.

Clinical outcomes of the robot-assisted Ivor Lewis procedure for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction with semi-instrument overlap intrathoracic anastomosis

Background

The main difficulty of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis (IL) procedure for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEGJ) is the intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis (IEA). We aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of the IL procedure with the da Vinci surgical system for treatment of AEGJ with semi-mechanical intrathoracic IEA.

Methods

The cohort included 72 patients with AEGJ who received treatment at the Department of Minimally Invasive Esophagus Surgery of the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital from August 2020 to March 2023. Of these 72 patients, 17 received neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy. The robot-assisted minimally invasive IL procedure was performed using a linear stapler for overlap side-to-side intrathoracic anastomosis and the stapler defect was closed with double full-layer continuous sutures by robotic hand-sewn (semi-mechanical) IEA.

Results

Of the 72 AEGJ patients, 2 were converted to exploration, 7 were converted to laparotomy and thoracotomy for circular-stapled intrathoracic anastomosis, and 6 were converted to thoracotomy for circular-stapled anastomosis, which included 2 cases of extensive pleural adhesion and 4 cases of overlap anastomosis failure, whereas 57 underwent the robot-assisted minimally invasive IL procedure with semi-mechanical IEA. Among the 9 patients converted to laparotomy, the laparotomy rate was closely related to the Siewert classification (P<0.005) and preoperative use of neoadjuvant therapy (P<0.05). Among the 57 patients who underwent the robot-assisted minimally invasive IL procedure with semi-mechanical IEA, there were 2 cases of anastomotic leakages (2/57, 3.5%), no case of anastomotic stricture, 5 cases of postoperative pneumonia (5/57, 8.77%), 2 cases of intensive care unit admission (2/57, 3.5%), and 1 case of readmission within 30 days (1/57, 1.75%). None of the patients died within 30 days after surgery.

Conclusions

The robot-assisted minimally invasive IL procedure with semi-mechanical IEA is both safe and feasible for AEGJ. However, caution is advised for patients with Siewert type III AEGJ and those who have already received preoperative neoadjuvant therapy.