Early Quality of Life Outcomes After Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive and Open Esophagectomy

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.

Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Upper GI Malignancies

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) conditions vastly affect each individual's physical, social, and emotional status. The decision-making process by the medical personnel about these patients is currently based on a patient's life quality evaluation scale, HRQL scales. By utilizing HRQL scales, a better understanding of the various surgical and non-surgical treatment options, as well as their long-term consequences, can be achieved. In our study, an organ-based approach is used in an attempt to examine and characterized the effect of upper GI surgery on HRQL. Therefore, HRQL scales' function as a prognostic tool is useful, and the need for future research, the creation of valid training programs, and modern guidelines is highlighted.

[Robotic esophageal surgery]

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is increasingly becoming established as a standard procedure in surgical centers for esophagectomy in cases of cancer. To date, RAMIE has been shown to have fewer postoperative complications and at least equivalent oncological outcomes compared with open resection. Compared with classical minimally invasive resection, there seem to be fewer cases of postoperative pneumonia after RAMIE. In addition, a higher number of harvested lymph nodes could lead to better oncological long-term outcomes. The learning curve for this complex surgical procedure is relatively shallow but can be greatly reduced at high-volume centers through special training and proctoring programs. Robotic surgical approaches have also been described for other esophageal diseases; however, no clear superiority compared to laparoscopic surgery has so far been shown.

Comparison of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: A propensity-matched study from a single high-volume institution

OBJECTIVE

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy accounts for a growing proportion of esophagectomies, potentially due to improved technical capabilities simplifying the challenging aspects of standard minimally invasive esophagectomy. However, there is limited evidence directly comparing both operations. The objective is to evaluate the short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy in comparison with the minimally invasive esophagectomy approach for patients with esophageal cancer over a 7-year period at a high-volume center. The primary end points of this study were overall survival and disease-free survival. Secondary end points included operation-specific morbidity, lymph node yield, readmission status, and in-hospital, 30-day, and 90-day mortality.

METHODS

Patients who underwent robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy or standard minimally invasive esophagectomy over a 7-year period were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Inclusion criteria were patients with stage I to III disease, operations performed past the learning curve, and no evidence of scleroderma or cirrhosis. A 1:3 propensity match (robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy:minimally invasive esophagectomy) for multiple clinical covariates was performed to identify the final study cohort. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the 2 operations.

RESULTS

A total of 734 patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy (n = 630) or robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (n = 104) for esophageal cancer were identified. After exclusions and matching, a total cohort of 246 patients undergoing robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (n = 65) or minimally invasive esophagectomy (n = 181) were identified. There was no difference in overall survival (P = .69) or disease-free survival (P = .70). There were no significant differences in rates of major morbidity: pneumonia (17% vs 17%, P = .34), chylothorax (8% vs 9%, P = .95), recurrent laryngeal nerve injury (0% vs 1.5%, P = 1), anastomotic leak (5% vs 4%, P = .49), intraoperative complications (9% vs 8%, P = .73), or complete resection rates (99% vs 96%, P = .68). There was no difference in in-hospital (P = .89), 30-day (P = .66) or 90-day mortality (P = .73) between both cohorts. The robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy cohort yielded a higher median lymph node harvest in comparison with the minimally invasive esophagectomy cohort (32 vs 29, P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy may improve lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy and robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy are otherwise associated with similar mortality, morbidity, and perioperative outcomes. Further prospective study is required to investigate whether improved lymph node resection may translate to improved oncologic outcomes.

Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Postoperative Outcomes in a Nationwide Cohort

INTRODUCTION

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in clinical trials has demonstrated improved outcomes compared to open esophagectomy (OE). However, outcomes after national implementation remain unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate postoperative outcomes after RAMIE.

METHODS

Patients who underwent elective esophagectomy between 2016 and 2020 were identified from the American College of Surgeons-- National Surgical Quality Improvement Program esophageal targeted participant user files and categorized by operative approach, with patients who underwent hybrid procedures excluded. Outcomes were compared between OE and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE)/RAMIE, with subset analyses by minimally invasive operative approach. Primary outcomes included pulmonary complications, anastomotic leak requiring reintervention, all-cause morbidity, and 30-d mortality.

RESULTS

In total 2786 patients were included, of which 58.3% underwent OE, 33.2% underwent MIE, and 8.4% underwent RAMIE. In the entire cohort, Ivor Lewis esophagectomy was the most common technique (64.6%), followed by transhiatal (22.0%), and a McKeown technique (13.4%). Comparing OE and MIE/RAMIE, pulmonary complications (21.5% versus 16.1%, P < 0.01) and all-cause morbidity (40.9% versus 32.3%, P < 0.01) were both reduced in the MIE/RAMIE group. When directly comparing MIE to RAMIE, there was no difference in the rate of pulmonary complications, anastomotic leak, all-cause morbidity, and mortality. However, RAMIE was associated with decreased all-cause morbidity compared to OE (40.9% versus 33.3%, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

RAMIE was associated with decreased morbidity compared to OE, with similar outcomes to MIE. The national adoption of RAMIE in this select cohort appears safe.

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.

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.

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.

Today's Mistakes and Tomorrow's Wisdom in the Surgical Treatment of Barrett's Adenocarcinoma

Background

Barrett's esophagus is a premalignant condition caused by longstanding gastroesophageal reflux disease and may progress to low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia (HGD), and finally esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Summary

Barrett's adenocarcinoma can be treated either by endoscopic or surgical resection, depending on the clinical staging. Endoscopic resection is a safe and adequate treatment option for HGD, mucosal tumors, and low-risk submucosal tumors. Its role in the treatment of high-risk submucosal tumors and the role of organ-preserving sentinel node navigated surgery are still under investigation. Esophagectomy with neoadjuvant chemoradiation or perioperative chemotherapy is considered the standard of care for locally advanced Barrett's adenocarcinoma. Regarding operative technique, there is no proven superiority of one technique over another, although a minimally invasive transthoracic technique seems most commonly applied nowadays. In this review, state-of-the-art evidence and future expectations are presented regarding indications for resection, neoadjuvant or perioperative therapy, type of surgery, and postoperative follow-up for Barrett's adenocarcinoma.

Key Messages

In Barrett's adenocarcinoma, endoscopic resection is the standard treatment option for low-risk mucosal and submucosal tumors. For high-risk submucosal tumors, endoscopic submucosal dissection with close surveillance and sentinel node navigated surgery are currently being studied. For locally advanced cancer, a multimodal therapy including esophagectomy is the standard of care. Nowadays, in high-volume centers, a minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy with an intrathoracic anastomosis is the most common procedure for Barrett's adenocarcinoma.

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy within the prospective multicenter German da Vinci Xi registry trial

Abstract

Purpose

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has become one standard approach for the operative treatment of esophageal tumors at specialized centers. Here, we report the results of a prospective multicenter registry for standardized RAMIE.

Methods

The German da Vinci Xi registry trial included all consecutive patients who underwent RAMIE at five tertiary university centers between Oct 17, 2017, and Jun 5, 2020. RAMIE was performed according to a standard technique using an intrathoracic circular stapled esophagogastrostomy.

Results

A total of 220 patients were included. The median age was 64 years. Total minimally invasive RAMIE was accomplished in 85.9%; hybrid resection with robotic-assisted thoracic approach was accomplished in an additional 11.4%. A circular stapler size of ≥28 mm was used in 84%, and the median blood loss and operative time were 200 (IQR: 80–400) ml and 425 (IQR: 335–527) min, respectively. The rate of anastomotic leakage was 13.2% (n=29), whereas the two centers with >70 cases each had rates of 7.0% and 12.0%. Pneumonia occurred in 19.5% of patients, and the 90-day mortality was 3.6%. Cumulative sum analysis of the operative time indicated the end of the learning curve after 22 cases.

Conclusions

High-quality multicenter registry data confirm that RAMIE is a safe procedure and can be reproduced with acceptable leak rates in a multicenter setting. The learning curve is comparably low for experienced robotic surgeons.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00423-022-02520-w.

Phase II Trial Evaluating Esophageal Anastomotic Reinforcement with a Biologic, Degradable, Extracellular Matrix after Total Gastrectomy and Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

A biologic, degradable extracellular matrix (ECM) has been shown to support esophageal tissue remodeling, which could reduce the risk of anastomotic leak following total gastrectomy and esophagectomy. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of reinforcing the anastomosis with ECM in reducing anastomotic leak as compared to a matched cohort.

STUDY DESIGN

In this single-center, nonrandomized phase II trial, gastric or esophageal adenocarcinoma patients undergoing total gastrectomy or esophagectomy were recruited from November 2013 through December 2018. ECM was surgically wrapped circumferentially around the anastomosis. Anastomotic leak was assessed clinically and by contrast study and defined as clinically significant if requiring invasive treatment (grade 3 or higher). Anastomotic stenosis, other adverse events, symptoms, and dysphagia score were collected by standardized forms at regular follow-up visits at approximately postoperative days (POD) 21 and 90. Patients receiving ECM were compared to a cohort matched for surgery type and age.

RESULTS

ECM placement was not feasible in 9 of 75 patients (12%), resulting in 66 patients receiving ECM. Total gastrectomy was performed in 50 patients (76%) and esophagectomy in 16 (24%). Clinically significant anastomotic leak was diagnosed in 6 of 66 patients (9.1%) (3/50 [6.0%] after gastrectomy, 3/16 [18.8%] after esophagectomy); this rate did not differ from that in the matched cohort (p = 0.57). Stenosis requiring invasive treatment occurred in 8 patients (12.5%), and 10 patients (15.6%) reported not being able to eat a normal diet at POD 90. No adverse events related to ECM were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Esophageal anastomotic reinforcement after total gastrectomy or esophagectomy with a biologic, degradable ECM was mostly feasible and safe, but was not associated with a statistically significant decrease in anastomotic leak.

Robotic and video-assisted lobectomy/segmentectomy for non-small cell lung cancer have similar perioperative outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

At present, the clinical conclusion that robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) and video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS), which is better for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not clear. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes between RATS and VATS for NSCLC.

Methods

The Population, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes, and Study design (PICOS) framework was employed to develop the search strategy, and the findings was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We searched EMbase, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wan Fang Data to collect clinical studies about RATS vs. VATS for patients with NSCLC from inception to October 2019. The following outcomes were measured: rate of conversion to thoracotomy, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital mortality, lymph node dissection, hospitalization time, operating time, and postoperative drainage days. Estimation of potential publication bias was conducted by Begg’s test and Egger’s test. The Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) and Odds Ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using Stata 15.0 software.

Results

A total of 18 studies involving 60,349 patients were included. Among them, 8,726 cases were in the RATS group, and 51,623 were in the VATS group. The results of meta-analysis showed that the operation time of RATS group was longer than that of VATS group (SMD=0.532, 95% CI: 0.391–0.674, P=0.000). And the further meta-analysis suggested that the incidence of postoperative complications was lower in patients who underwent RATS after 2015 (OR=0.848, 95% CI: 0.748–0.962, P=0.010). Meanwhile, there was no significant difference between both groups in postoperative hospitalization time (SMD=0.003, 95% CI: −0.104–0.110, P=0.957). In addition, more lymph nodes were retrieved in RATS group than VATS (SMD=0.308, 95% CI: 0.131–0.486, P=0.001). However, the conversion rate, retrieved lymph node station, days to tube removal and in-hospital mortality rate have no significant differences between both groups.

Discussion

The current meta-analysis indicates that the perioperative outcomes of RATS and VATS for NSCLC are equivalence. Due to the limited quantity and quality of included studies, the above conclusions still need to be verified by more high-quality studies.

Health-related quality of life after esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer

Esophageal cancer is one of the malignant tumors with the poorest prognosis. Esophagectomy, which is the mainstay of curative-intent treatments, imposes excessive surgical stress on the patients, and postoperative morbidity and mortality rates after esophagectomy remain high. On the other hand, the number of survivors after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is increasing due to recent improvements in surgical techniques and multidisciplinary treatments for this cancer. However, esophagectomy still has a great influence on the fundamental aspect of patients' lives, that is, the health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), including their physical, emotional, and social functions in the short- and long-term postoperatively. HR-QOL is a multifactorial concept used to assess the symptoms and functional changes caused by the disease itself and treatments from the patients' perspectives. Therefore, assessing the HR-QOL of patients with esophageal cancer after esophagectomy is becoming increasingly important. However, the status of HR-QOL changes after esophagectomy has not been satisfactorily evaluated, and there is no worldwide consensus as to how the postoperative HR-QOL can be improved. This review aimed to raise awareness of healthcare providers, such as surgeons and nurses, on the importance of HR-QOL in patients with esophageal cancer after curative-intent esophagectomy by providing multifaceted information concerning the short- and long-term HR-QOLs, including the status of changes and the determinants of HR-QOL after esophagectomy, and furthermore, essential points for improvement of HR-QOL after esophagectomy.

Surgical outcomes after totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A transthoracic esophagectomy is associated with high rates of morbidity. Minimally invasive esophagectomy has emerged to decrease such morbidity. The aim of this study was to accurately determine surgical outcomes after totally minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy (TMIE).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify original articles analyzing patients who underwent TMIE. Main outcomes included overall morbidity, major morbidity, pneumonia, arrhythmia, anastomotic leak, chyle leak, and mortality. A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the overall weighted proportion and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for each analyzed outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 5619 patients were included for analysis; 4781 (85.1%) underwent a laparoscopic/thoracoscopic esophagectomy and 838 (14.9%) a robotic-assisted esophagectomy. Mean age of patients was 63.5 (55-67) years and 75.8% were male. Overall morbidity and major morbidity rates were 39% (95% CI, 33%-45%) and 20% (95% CI, 13%-28%), respectively. Postoperative pneumonia and arrhythmia rates were 10% (95% CI, 8%-13%) and 12% (95% CI, 8%-17%), respectively. Anastomotic leak rate across studies was 8% (95% CI, 6%-10%). Chyle leak rate was 3% (95% CI, 2%-5%). Mortality rate was 2% (95% CI, 2%-2%). Median ICU stay and length of hospital stay were 2 (1-4) and 11.2 (7-20) days, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Totally minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy is a challenging procedure with high morbidity rates. Strategies to enhance postoperative outcomes after this operation are still needed.

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.

Profiling patient-reported symptom recovery from oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a real-world longitudinal study

PURPOSE

Oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients have severe symptom burden after oesophagectomy; however, longitudinal studies of symptom recovery after surgery are scarce. This study used longitudinal patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based symptoms to identify severe symptoms and profile symptom recovery from surgery in patients undergoing oesophagectomy.

METHODS

Oesophageal cancer patients (N = 327) underwent oesophagectomy were consecutively included between April 2019 and March 2020. Data were extracted from the Sichuan Cancer Hospital's Esophageal Cancer Case Management Registration Database. Symptom assessment time points were pre-surgery and 1, 3, 5, 7, 14, 21, 30, and 90 days post-surgery using the Chinese version of the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory. And each symptom was rated on an 11-point scale, with 0 being 'not present' and 10 being 'as bad as you can imagine'. The symptom recovery trajectories were profiled using mixed effect models and Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

The most-severe symptoms on day 1 after oesophagectomy were pain, fatigue, dry mouth, disturbed sleep, and distress. The severity of symptoms peaked on day 1 after surgery. The top two symptoms were fatigue (mean: 5.44 [SD 1.88]) and pain (mean: 5.23 [SD 1.29]). Fatigue was more severe 90 days after surgery than at baseline (mean: 1.77 [SD 1.47] vs 0.65 [SD 1.05]; P < .0001). Disturbed sleep and distress persisted from pre-surgery to 90 days post-surgery; average sleep recovery time was up to 20 days, and 50.58% of patients had sleep disturbances 90 days post-surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Early post-operative pain management after oesophagectomy should be considered. Characteristics and intervention strategies of post-operative fatigue, distress, and disturbed sleep in oesophageal cancer patients warrant further studies.

Technique of robotic esophagectomy

Robotic surgery continues to grow in thoracic surgery, and currently plays an evolving role in esophagectomy. Robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has continued to expand, with many institutions adapting the technique. As the overall experience continues to grow, new data is emerging in its support. We present our approach to this operation.

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.

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.

Robot-Assisted Versus Conventional Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Early Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial: the RAMIE Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative and long-term outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) and conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in the treatment for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

RAMIE has emerged as an alternative to traditional open or thoracoscopic approaches. Efficacy and safety of RAMIE and MIE in the surgical treatment for ESCC remains uncertain given the lack of high-level clinical evidence.

METHODS

The RAMIE trial was designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial that compare the efficacy and safety of RAMIE and MIE in the treatment of resectable ESCC. From August 2017 to December 2019, eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either RAMIE or MIE performed by experienced thoracic surgeons from six high-volume centers in China. Intent-to-treat analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Significantly shorter operation time was taken in RAMIE (203.8 vs. 244.9 mins, P<0.001). Compared to MIE, RAMIE showed improved efficiency of thoracic lymph node dissection in patients who received neoadjuvant therapy (15 vs. 12, P=0.016), as well as higher achievement rate of lymph node dissection along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) (79.5% vs. 67.6%, P=0.001). No difference was found in blood loss, conversion rate, and R0 resection. The 90-day mortality was 0.6% in each group. Overall complications were similar in RAMIE (48.6%) compared to MIE (41.8%) (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.92-1.46; P=0.196). Besides, the rate of major complications (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ III) was also comparable (12.2% vs. 10.2%, P=0.551). RAMIE showed similar incidences of pulmonary complications (13.8% vs. 14.7%; P=0.812), anastomotic leakage (12.2% vs. 11.3%; P=0.801) and vocal cord paralysis (32.6% vs. 27.1%, P=0.258) to MIE.

CONCLUSIONS

Early results demonstrate that both RAMIE and MIE are safe and feasible for the treatment of ESCC. RAMIE can achieve shorter operative duration as well as better lymph node dissection in patients who received neoadjuvant therapy. Long-term results are pending for further follow-up investigations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT03094351.

Similar Quality of Life After Conventional and Robotic Transhiatal Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) have demonstrated benefits compared to open transthoracic or 3-hole esophagectomy. PROs including quality of life (QoL) and fear of recurrence (FoR) comparing open transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) and transhiatal robotic-assisted MIE (Th-RAMIE) have been limited.

METHODS

At a single, high-volume academic center, patients undergoing THE and Th-RAMIE with gastric conduit for clinical stage I-III esophageal cancer from 2013 to 2018 were evaluated. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire in Esophageal Cancer (QLQ-OES18), and FoR survey were administered preoperatively, and at 1, 6- and 12-months post-operatively. Linear mixed-effects models were used for QoL and FoR score comparisons. Perioperative outcomes were also compared.

RESULTS

309 patients (212 THE and 97 Th-RAMIE) were included. The Th-RAMIE cohort had a significantly higher number of lymph nodes harvested (14 ±0.8 vs. 11.2 ±0.4; p = 0.01), shorter length of stay (days, 10.0 ± 6.7 vs. 12.1 ±7.0; p = 0.03), lower rates of postoperative ileus (5% vs. 15%; p = 0.02), and had fewer opioids prescribed at discharge (71% vs. 85%; p = 0.03). After adjustment, there were no significant differences in QLQ-C30, QLQ-OES18, and FoR scores between groups out to 1 year following surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no clear patient-reported benefits of Th-RAMIE over THE for esophageal cancer. However, Th-RAMIE conferred a number of perioperative benefits.

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.

State of the art in esophagectomy: robotic assistance in the abdominal phase

Over the years, robot-assisted esophagectomy gained popularity. The current literature focused mainly on robotic assistance in the thoracic phase, whereas the implementation of robotic assistance in the abdominal phase is lagging behind. Advantages of adding a robotic system to the abdominal phase include robotic stapling and the increased surgeon's independency. In terms of short-term outcomes and lymphadenectomy, robotic assistance is at least equal to laparoscopy. Yet high quality evidence to conclude on this topic remains scarce. This review focuses on the evidence of robotic assistance in the abdominal phase of esophagectomy.

Postoperative complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy in the prone position: any anesthesia-related factor?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the incidence of postoperative complications arising within 30 days of minimally invasive esophagectomy in the prone position with total lung ventilation and their relationship with 30-day and 1-year mortality. Secondary outcomes included possible anesthesia-related factors linked to the development of complications.

METHODS

The study is a retrospective single-center observational study at the Anesthesia and Surgical Department of a tertiary care center in the northeast of Italy. Patients underwent cancer resection through esophagectomy in the prone position without one-lung ventilation.

RESULTS

We included 110 patients from January 2010 to December 2017. A total of 54% of patients developed postoperative complications that increased mortality risk at 1 year of follow-up. Complications postponed first oral intake and delayed patient discharge to home. Positive intraoperative fluid balance was related to increased mortality and the risk to develop postoperative complications. C-reactive protein at third postoperative day may help detect complication onset.

CONCLUSIONS

Complication onset has a great impact on mortality after esophagectomy. Some anesthesia-related factors, mainly fluid balance, may be associated with postoperative mortality and morbidity. These factors should be carefully taken into account to obtain better outcomes after esophagectomy in the prone position without one-lung ventilation.

Specific complications and limitations of robotic esophagectomy

Regardless of the approach to esophagectomy, it is an operation that may be associated with significant risk to the patient. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has the same potential for short- and long-term complications as does open and minimally invasive esophagectomy. These complications include among others, the risk for anastomotic leak, gastric tip necrosis, vocal cord palsy, and chylothorax. Moreover, there are additional risks that are unique to the robotic platform such as hardware or software malfunction. These risks are heavily influenced by numerous factors including the patient's comorbidities, whether neoadjuvant therapy was administered, and the extent of the surgical team's experience. The limitations of RAMIE are therefore based on the careful assessment of the patient for operability, the tumor for resectability and the team for surgical ability. This article will tackle the topic of complications and limitations of RAMIE by examining each of these issues. It will also describe the recommended terminology for reporting post-esophagectomy complications.

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) after minimally invasive and open esophagectomy

Esophagectomy for esophageal malignancies remains an operation with significant potential morbidity and mortality. However, surgical outcomes continue to improve over time and focus has shifted toward not just good outcomes, but quality of life post operatively. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) focus of quality of life measures via validated patient surveys has increasingly become a significant focus. While PROs do have their limitations, they represent a glimpse into the symptomatology, quality of life, and well-being of a patient undergoing a procedure with inherent morbidity. Working to improve outcomes from the perspective of the patient is not a new concept, but has becoming increasingly relevant as surgical quality for all procedures improves. The optimal approach to esophagectomy is controversial. Minimally invasive approaches attempt to avoid laparotomy and thoracotomy with the thought of improving post-operative quality of life by mitigating complications related to those open surgical approaches. The data in favor of laparoscopy and thoracoscopy is quite strong and multiple randomized controlled trials exist in this realm supporting minimally invasive approaches with regards to quality of life outcomes and more rapid return to patient’s preoperative baseline. The data in favor of a robotic approach for esophagectomy is not quite as robust, but more studies show that these approaches mirror the benefits of the laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approaches without robotic assistance.

Long-Term, Health-Related Quality of Life after Open and Robot-Assisted Ivor-Lewis Procedures-A Propensity Score-Matched Study

Esophagectomies are among the most invasive surgical procedures that highly influence health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Recent improvements have helped to achieve longer survival. Therefore, long-term postoperative HRQoL needs to be emphasized in addition to classic criterions like morbidity and mortality. We aimed to compare short and long-term HRQoL after open transthoracic esophagectomies (OTEs) and robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomies (RAMIEs) in patients suffering from esophageal adenocarcinoma. Prospectively collected HRQoL-data (from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30)) were correlated with clinical courses. Only patients suffering from minor postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo Classification of < 2) after R0 Ivor-Lewis-procedures were included. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status-score (ASA-score), tumor stage, and perioperative therapy were used for propensity score matching (PSM). Twelve RAMIE and 29 OTE patients met the inclusion criteria. RAMIE patients reported significantly better emotional and social function while suffering from significantly less pain and less physical impairment four months after surgery. The long-term follow up confirmed the results. Long-term postoperative HRQoL and self-perception partly exceeded the levels of the healthy reference population. Minor operative trauma by robotic approaches resulted in significantly reduced physical impairments while improving HRQoL and self-perception, especially in the long-term. However, further long-term results are warranted to confirm this positive trend.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy: clinical evidence and surgical techniques

Background

Surgical esophagectomy plays a crucial role in the curative and palliative treatment of esophageal cancer. Thereby, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly applied all over the world. Combining minimal invasiveness with improved possibilities for meticulous dissection, robot-assisted minimal invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been implemented in many centers.

Purpose

This review focuses on the development of MIE as well as RAMIE and their value based on evidence in current literature.

Conclusion

Although MIE and RAMIE are highly complex procedures, they can be performed safely with improved postoperative outcome and equal oncological results compared with open esophagectomy (OE). RAMIE offers additional advantages regarding surgical dissection, lymphadenectomy, and extended indications for advanced tumors.

Health-related quality of life in curatively-treated patients with esophageal or gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Surgery and chemoradiotherapy can potentially cure esophageal and gastric cancer patients, although they may impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We aim to systemically review and meta-analyze literature to determine the effect of curative treatments on HRQoL in esophageal and gastric cancer.- A systematic search was performed identifying studies assessing HRQoL. Meta-analyses were performed on baseline and subsequent time-points.- From the 6067 articles retrieved, 49 studies were included (61 % low quality). Meta-analyses showed short-term HRQoL differences between esophageal cancer patients receiving definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT), neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy (nC(R)T), or surgery alone (p < 0.001), with better HRQoL with nC(R)T and surgery compared to dCRT. Over the course of 12 months, no HRQoL difference was identified between treatments in esophageal cancer (p = 0.633). Esophagectomy, but not gastrectomy, resulted in a clinically relevant decline in HRQoL. No long-term HRQoL differences were identified between curative treatments in esophageal and gastric cancer. More high-quality HRQoL studies are warranted.

Intraoperative Anesthetic and Surgical Concerns for Robotic Thoracic Surgery

Robotic thoracic surgery continues to gain momentum and is emerging as the optimal method for minimally invasive thoracic surgery. As a rapidly advancing field, continued review of the surgical and anesthetic concerns unique to robotic thoracic operations is necessary to maintain safe and efficient practice. In this review, we discuss the intraoperative concerns as they pertain to pulmonary, esophageal, and mediastinal thoracic robotic operations.

Postoperative short-term outcomes of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to synthesize the available evidence regarding short‐term outcomes between minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE).

Methods

Studies were identified by searching databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library up to March 2019 without language restrictions. Results of these searches were filtered according to a set of eligibility criteria and analyzed in line with PRISMA guidelines.

Results

There were 33 studies included with a total of 13 269 patients in our review, out of which 4948 cases were of MIE and 8321 cases were of OE. The pooled results suggested that MIE had a better outcome regarding all‐cause respiratory complications (RCs) (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.41–0.78, P = <0.001), in‐hospital duration (SMD = −0.51; 95% CI = −0.78−0.24; P = <0.001), and blood loss (SMD = −1.44; 95% CI = −1.95−0.93; P = <0.001). OE was associated with shorter duration of operation time, while no statistically significant differences were observed regarding other outcomes. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed for a number of different postoperative events.

Conclusions

Our study indicated that MIE had more favorable outcomes than OE from the perspective of short‐term outcomes. Further large‐scale, multicenter randomized control trials are needed to explore the long‐term survival outcomes after MIE versus OE.

Robotic Thoracic Surgery

Minimally invasive surgery for diseases of the chest offsets the morbidity of painful thoracic incisions while allowing for meticulous dissection of major anatomic structures. This benefit translates to improved outcomes and recovery following the surgical management of benign and malignant esophageal pathologic condition, mediastinal tumors, and lung resections. This anatomic region is particularly amenable to a robotic approach given the fixed space and need for complex intracorporeal dissection. As robotic platforms continue to evolve, more complex thoracic surgical interventions will be facilitated, translating to improved outcomes for our patients.

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: past, present and future

Esophagectomy for cancer of the esophagus is increasingly performed using minimally invasive techniques. After the introduction of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in the early 1990's, robotic-assisted techniques followed after the turn of the millennium. The advent of robotic platforms has allowed the development of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) over the past 15 years. Although recent trials have shown superior peri-operative morbidity and quality of life compared to open esophagectomy, no randomized trials have compared RAMIE to conventional MIE. This paper summarizes the current literature on RAMIE and provides an overview of expected future developments in robotic surgery.