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

Chylous leakage after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Chylous leakage is a rare complication following esophagectomy; however, it can lead to mortality. We aimed to systematically evaluate the factors that may lead to increased chylous leakage after esophagectomy.

METHODS

Three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were systematically searched for all studies investigating the occurrence of chylous leakage after esophagectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies were identified, including 26 randomized controlled trials and 3 cohort and case-control studies, each. The overall incidence of chylous leakage was 4.7% (278/5,971 cases). Analysis of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors showed that most of the qualitative analysis results did not significantly increase the incidence of chylous leakage. In some quantitative analyses, the chylous leakage rate was significantly lower in the thoracic duct mass ligation group than in the conservative treatment group (relative risk [RR] = 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13-0.83; I2 = 0.0%; P = 0.327). Direct oral feeding significantly reduced chylous leakage compared with jejunostomy (RR = 0.06; 95% CI 0.01-0.33; I2 = 0.0%; P = 0.335). However, preoperative inspiratory muscle training (RR = 1.66; 95% CI, 0.21-12.33; I2 = 55.5%; P = 0.134), preoperative chemoradiotherapy (RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.55-1.80; I2 = 0.0%; P = 0.943), and robotic assistance (RR = 1.62; 95% CI, 0.92-2.86; I2 = 0.0%; P = 0.814) did not significantly reduce the incidence of chylous leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

Ligation of the thoracic duct and direct oral feeding can reduce the incidence of chylous leakage after esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer. Other contributing factors remain unclear and require validation in further high-quality studies.

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.

Meta-analysis of robot-assisted versus video-assisted McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

We aim to review the available literature on patients with esophageal cancer treated with robot-assisted (RAME) or video-assisted McKeown's esophagectomy (VAME), to compare the efficacy and safety of the two approaches. Original research studies that evaluated perioperative and oncologic outcomes of RAME versus VAME were identified, from January 1990 to July 2022. The 90-day mortality, the R0 resection rate, the dissected lymph nodes, the perioperative parameters, and the complications were calculated according to a fixed and a random effect model. The Q statistics and I² statistic were used to test for heterogeneity among the studies. Seven studies were included, incorporating a total of 1617 patients treated with RAME or VAME. The 90-day mortality was similar between the two groups. No difference was found regarding the R0 resection rate and the number of dissected lymph nodes. In addition, the perioperative parameters, along with the total complications were similar between RAME and VAME. Nonetheless, the incidence of postoperative pneumonia was higher in the VAME group (OR:0.67 [95% CI: 0.49, 0.93]; p = 0.02). Finally, our outcomes were further validated by sensitivity analysis including only studies performing propensity score-matched analysis. Our meta-analysis showed that RAME was equivalent to VAME in terms of safety, feasibility, and oncologic adequacy. These results should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of included studies. New Randomized Controlled trials, that are currently active, will provide further evidence with greater clarity to assess the effectiveness and safety of RAME for esophageal cancer.