Optimization of robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the lateral decubitus position

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.

Multidisciplinary treatment of advanced cervical esophageal adenocarcinoma derived from a gastric inlet patch: A case report

A gastric inlet patch (GIP) is an ectopic gastric mucosal lesion usually arising at the cervical esophagus that may rarely cause esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of a GIP-derived EAC that was successfully treated using a multidisciplinary treatment approach. A 64-year-old man was referred to the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Kanazawa University Hospital (Kanazawa, Japan) for surgical treatment of refractory recurrent cervical EAC derived from GIP who had previously been treated with induction chemotherapy, definitive chemoradiotherapy and photodynamic therapy (PDT). Esophagogastroduodenoscopy revealed a stenotic tumor at the GIP site in the cervical esophagus and submucosal tumors with suspected multiple intramural metastases in the anal side of the thoracic esophagus. The patient underwent robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy with laryngopharyngectomy and cervical lymphadenectomy as radical salvage surgery 4 months after the last PDT procedure. After postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy using oral administration of tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil (oral 5-fluorouracil prodrug) for 1 year; at present, the patient is alive without recurrence 3 years after the operation.

Why pay more for robot in esophageal cancer surgery?

Esophagectomy is the gold standard for the treatment of resectable esophageal cancer. Traditionally, it is performed through a laparotomy and a thoracotomy, and is associated with high rates of postoperative complications and mortality. The advent of robotic surgery has represented a technological evolution in the field of esophageal cancer treatment. Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been progressively widely adopted following the first reports on the safety and feasibility of this procedure in 2004. The robotic approach has better short-term postoperative outcomes than open esophagectomy, without jeopardizing oncologic radicality. The results of the comparison between RAMIE and conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy are less conclusive. This article will focus on the role of RAMIE in the current clinical scenario with particular attention to its possible benefits and perspectives.

Novel surgical technique of robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the lateral decubitus position

We performed robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy in lateral decubitus position (LDP) with camera rotation and manual hand control assignment to reproduce the visualization and manipulation of open esophagectomy or thoracoscopic esophagectomy in LDP. Four robotic ports and two 12 mm assistant ports were placed. The camera image for the operator was vertically and horizontally inverted by camera rotation to create an operative view similar to that achieved under open thoracotomy. We used a forward-oblique viewing endoscope with a 30° down-facing orientation. The mediastinal view was obtained by single lung ventilation, artificial pneumothorax by carbon dioxide insufflation, and trachea retraction by the assistant. The right and left hands were assigned to any combination of two out of the three arms depending on the situation. The remaining arm was used as an assistant to create an adequate surgical view. The robotic platform is useful to manage aortic injury by direct suturing.

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.