Outcomes of robotic versus non-robotic minimally-invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: An American College of Surgeons NSQIP database analysis

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.

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.

Lower Rates of Unplanned Conversion to Open in Robotic Approach to Esophagectomy for Cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy have gained popularity worldwide; however, unplanned conversion to an open approach is not uncommon. This study sought to investigate risk factors associated with converting to an open approach and to evaluate outcomes following conversion.

METHODS

Patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for cancer were identified using the 2016-2019 Procedure Targeted NSQIP Database. Multivariable, stepwise logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate factors associated with unplanned conversion to open esophagectomy. Propensity-matched comparison of robotic (RAMIE) to traditional MIE was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1347 patients were included; 140 patients (10%) underwent conversion to open. Morbid obesity, diabetes, hypertension, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and squamous cell carcinoma were associated with a higher likelihood of conversion. A robotic approach was associated with a lower likelihood of conversion to open (OR .57, 95% CI 0.32-.99). On multivariable analysis, squamous cell carcinoma pathology was the only variable independently associated with higher odds of conversion (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.02-6.98). Propensity-matched comparison of RAMIE vs MIE showed no significant difference in conversion rate (6.5% vs 9.1%, P = .298), morbidity, or mortality.

DISCUSSION

A robotic approach to esophagectomy was associated with a lower likelihood of unplanned conversion to open, and patients who were converted to open experienced worse outcomes. Future studies should aim to determine why a robotic esophagectomy approach may lead to fewer open conversions as it may be an underappreciated benefit of this newest operative approach.

The Esophagogastric Anastomosis: The Importance of Anchoring Sutures in Reducing Anastomotic Leak Rates

Background

The incidence of anastomotic leakage in gastrointestinal surgery is highest after esophagogastric anastomosis, with leakage rates of 10% to 38% still being reported, but little consensus as to cause or corrective. The role of anastomotic tension from a series of physiological forces acting on the anastomosis from the moment of recovery from anesthesia may be underestimated. It was hypothesized that anchoring the conduit in the mediastinum would provide the greatest protection during the vulnerable healing phase.

Patients and Methods

A prospectively maintained database was interrogated for anastomotic leakage following the introduction of an anastomotic technique employing anchoring sutures where the gastric conduit was secured to the mediastinal pleura with 3 obliquely inserted load-bearing sutures. A contrast study was performed between days 5 and 7 and all intrahospital mortalities underwent autopsy. Clinical, radiological, and autopsy leaks were recorded.

Results

Of 146 intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomoses in 144 patients, 81 (55%) of which were stapled, there was 1 clinical leak and 1 patient with an aortoenteric fistula, considered at autopsy to be possibly due to an anastomotic leak, to give an anastomotic leak rate of 2 in 146 (1.37%).

Conclusion

The low anastomotic leak rate in this series is potentially due to the protective effect of anchoring sutures, the chief difference from an otherwise standard anastomotic technique. These sutures protect the anastomosis from a series of distracting forces during the most vulnerable phase of healing. It is intuitive that the absence of tension would also reduce any risk posed by a minor impairment of blood supply or any imperfection of the technique.

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.

Reoperative Surgery After Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to identify factors influencing reoperations following minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and associated mortality and hospital costs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2013 and 2018, 125 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Outcomes included reoperations, mortality, and hospital costs. Multivariable logistic regression analyses determined factors associated with reoperations.

RESULTS

In-hospital reoperations (n=10) were associated with in-hospital mortality (n=3, P<0.01), higher hospital costs (P<0.01), and longer hospital stay (P<0.01). Conversely, reoperations after discharge were not associated with mortality. By multivariable analysis, baseline cardiovascular (P=0.02) and chronic kidney disease (P=0.01) were associated with reoperations. However, anastomotic leaks were not associated with reoperations nor mortality.

CONCLUSION

The majority of reoperations occur within 30 days often during index hospitalization. Reoperations were associated with increased in-hospital mortality and hospital costs. Notably, anastomotic leaks did not influence reoperations nor mortality. Efforts to optimize patient baseline comorbidities should be emphasized to minimize reoperations following minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

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.

Techniques of Esophageal Anastomoses for Esophagectomy

This article discusses and illustrates a variety of accepted techniques of esophagogastric anastomosis during an esophagectomy. The performance of an anastomotic technique can be surgeon specific, although it is of great benefit for the esophageal surgeon to be facile and adept in multiple techniques, as occasionally the clinical situation may be better suited for a particular technique. Regardless of the method of creating the esophagogastric anastomosis, the goal is to create a viable, tension-free and nonobstructive anastomosis with adequate margins.

Robotic esophagectomy: results from a tertiary care Italian center

There is growing evidence supporting the use of minimally invasive resection in esophageal surgery, mainly due to reduced postoperative morbidity and faster recovery after surgery. In recent years, robot-assisted surgery has shown some potential benefits over conventional laparo-thoracoscopic esophagectomy. The purpose of this study is to report our experience with different esophageal resections with a full-robotic approach for malignant disease. All consecutive patients with resectable esophageal malignancy undergoing robotic esophagectomy over a 6-year time frame by a single surgical team were included in this analysis. Perioperative and clinicopathological outcomes were assessed. A total of 76 patients received robotic esophagectomy. Surgeries included 45 Lewis procedures, 25 McKeown procedures, and six transhiatal resections. There were no intraoperative complications and no conversions occurred. The rate of postoperative morbidity was 41%, while the rate of anastomotic leak was 13%. Overall, eight patients required reintervention. All patients received R0 resection, with a median of harvested lymph nodes of 35. 30-day and 90-day mortality was 3.9 and 7.9%, respectively. Our findings support the safety and oncological efficiency of full-robotic esophagectomy. All procedures of esophageal resection were associated with the expected perioperative morbidity while providing excellent pathological outcomes for patients with malignancy.

Lower local recurrence rate after robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy than conventional thoracoscopic surgery for esophageal cancer

The oncological advantages of robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (RATE) over conventional thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) for thoracic esophageal cancer have yet to be verified. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed clinical data to compare the incidences of recurrence within the surgical field after RATE and TE as an indicator of local oncological control. Among 121 consecutive patients with thoracic esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancers for which thoracoscopic surgery was indicated, 51 were treated with RATE while 70 received TE. The number of lymph nodes dissected from the mediastinum, duration of the thoracic portion of the surgery, and morbidity due to postoperative complications did not differ between the two groups. However, the rate of overall local recurrence within the surgical field was significantly (P = 0.039) higher in the TE (9%) than the RATE (0%) group. Lymph node recurrence within the surgical field occurred in left recurrent nerve, left tracheobronchial, left main bronchus and thoracic paraaortic lymph nodes, which were all difficult to approach to dissect. The other two local failures occurred around the anastomotic site. This study indicates that using RATE enabled the incidence of recurrence within the surgical field to be reduced, though there were some limitations.

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.

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.

Robotic resection for esophageal cancer

Background

In the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer, complete tumor resection is the most important factor and determines long-term survival. With an increase in robotic expertise in other fields of surgery, robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) was born. Currently, there is a lack of convincing data on the extent of expected benefits (perioperative and oncologic outcomes and/or quality of life). Some evidence exists that patients’ overall quality of life and physical function improves, with less fatigue and pain 3 months after surgery. We aimed to review the available literature regarding robotic esophagectomy, compare perioperative, oncologic, and quality of life outcomes with open and minimally invasive approaches, and give a brief overview of our standardized four-arm RAMIE technique and explore future directions.

Methods

A Medline (PubMed) search was conducted including the following key words: esophagectomy, minimally invasive esophagectomy, robotic esophagectomy, Ivor Lewis and McKeown. We present the history, different techniques used, outcomes, and the standardization of robotic esophagectomy.

Results

Robotic esophagectomy offers a steeper learning curve with fewer complications but comparable oncological results compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Conclusions

Available studies suggest that RAMIE is associated with benefits regarding length of stay, clinical outcomes, and quality of life—if patients are treated in an experienced center with a standardized technique for robotic esophagectomy—making it a potentially beneficial tool in the treatment of esophageal cancer. However, center-wide standardization and prospective data collection will be a necessity to prove superiority of robotic esophagectomy.

Assessment of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Calculator in Predicting Outcomes and Length of Stay After Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

The American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) calculator is a useful tool used by physicians to better inform patients on the surgical risk of postoperative complications. It makes use of the NSQIP database to derive the chance for several adverse outcomes to occur postoperatively given certain patient's factors. The aim of this study was to assess its applicability in a series of patients undergoing an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

METHODS

Data from 100 consecutive patients who underwent an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy between September 2013 and November 2017 at our institution were reviewed. Each patient was assessed using the ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator. Actual events in this group were compared with their particular NSQIP-assessed risk. Logistic regression models were used to compare surgical risk calculator estimates binary outcomes such as incidence of postoperative complications such as cardiac events, renal events, surgical site infection, and death. Mixed linear model was used for length of stay (LOS) duration versus observed LOS. C-statistic was for predictive accuracy each binary outcome and intraclass correlation was used for LOS.

RESULTS

C-statistic values were higher than the cutoff (0.75) for surgical site infection and death. The ACS NSQIP risk calculator was poorly predictive of other reported outcomes by the calculator such as cardiac or renal complications. Corroboration between observed LOS and predicted LOS was weak (8 d versus 11 d, respectively, intraclass coefficient 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the risk calculator is useful for identifying risk of death or surgical site infection but poor at discriminating likelihood of other reported outcomes occurring, such as pneumonia, acute renal failure and cardiac complications for patients who underwent an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Estimations for procedure-specific complications for esophagectomy may need reevaluated.

Essential Updates 2018/2019: Essential Updates for esophageal cancer surgery

Key papers to treatment of esophageal cancer surgery and reduction of postoperative complications after esophagectomy published between 2018 and 2019 were reviewed. Within this review there was a focus on minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), robot-assisted MIE (RAMIE), and centralization to high-volume center. Advantages of MIE, irrespectively of hybrid or total MIE, to prevent postoperative complications, especially pneumonia, were shown in comparison to open procedure. However, whether total MIE has evident effects or not, as compared to hybrid MIEs, still remains unclear. Differences between RAMIE and MIE were reported to be marginal, though the advantage of lymphadenectomy, especially along recurrent laryngeal nerve, has been suggested. Centralization to high-volume center evidently benefits esophageal cancer patients by improving short-term outcomes. The definition of high-volume center has not been established yet, though institutional structure and quality are thought to be important. Transmediastinal esophagectomy, currently developed, has a potential to be one radical option of MIE for esophageal cancer.