Change from Hybrid to Fully Minimally Invasive and Robotic Esophagectomy is Possible without Compromises

Robotic-assisted esophagectomy with total mesoesophageal excision enhances R0-resection in patients with esophageal cancer: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

The focus of this research is to examine the growing use of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy. Specifically, it evaluates the immediate clinical and cancer-related results of combining robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy with a systematic approach to total mesoesophageal excision, as opposed to traditional open transthoracic esophagectomy methods that do not employ a structured total mesoesophageal excision protocol.

METHODS

A propensity score-matched analysis of 185 robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomies and 223 open transthoracic esophagectomies after standardized Ivor Lewis esophagectomy was performed. After 1:1 nearest neighbor matching to account for confounding by covariates, outcomes of 181 robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy and 181 open transthoracic esophagectomy were compared.

RESULTS

The patient characteristics showed significant differences in the age distribution and in comorbidities such as coronary heart disease, arterial hypertension, and anticoagulant intake. The R0-resection rate of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (96.7%) was significantly higher than open transthoracic esophagectomy (89.0%, P = .004). Thirty-day mortality and hospital mortality showed no significant differences. Postoperative pneumonia rate after robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (12.7%) was significantly reduced (open transthoracic esophagectomy 28.7%, P < .001). Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy had a significantly shorter intensive care unit stay (P < .001) and shorter hospital stay (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This single-center, retrospective study employing propensity score matching found that combining robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy with structured total mesoesophageal excision results in better short-term clinical and oncologic outcomes than open transthoracic esophagectomy. This finding is significant because the increased rate of R0 resection could indicate a higher likelihood of improved long-term survival. Additionally, enhanced overall postoperative recovery may contribute to better risk management in esophagectomy procedures.

Safe Transition from Open to Total Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Cancer Utilizing Process Management Methodology

Background: The global shift from open esophagectomy (OE) to minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for treating esophageal cancer is well-established. Recent data indicate that transitioning from hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (hMIE) to total minimally invasive esophagectomy (tMIE) can be challenging due to concerns about higher leakage rates and lower lymph node counts, especially at the beginning of the learning curve. This study aimed to demonstrate that a safe transition from OE to tMIE for cancer is possible using process management methodology. Methods: A step-change approach was adopted in process management planning, with hMIE serving as an intermediate step between OE and tMIE. This single-center, case-control study included 150 patients who underwent the Ivor Lewis procedure with curative intent for esophageal cancer. Among these patients, 50 underwent OE, 50 hMIE (laparoscopic procedure followed by conventional right thoracotomy), and 50 tMIE (laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approach). A preceptored training scheme was implemented during execution, and treatment results were monitored and controlled to ensure a safe transition. Results: During the transition, the tMIE group was not worse than the hMIE and OE groups regarding operation duration (p = 0.135), overall postoperative complications (p = 0.020), anastomotic leakage rates (p = 0.773), 30-day mortality (p = 1.0), and oncological outcomes (based on R status (p = 0.628) and 2-year survival (p = 0.967)). Additionally, the tMIE group showed superior results in terms of major postoperative pulmonary complications (p = 0.004) and ICU stay duration (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Utilizing managerial methodology and practice in surgery, as a bridge between interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches, demonstrated that transitioning from OE to tMIE, with hMIE as an intermediate step, is safe and feasible without compromising outcomes.

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.

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.

Robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy

Background

Esophagectomy is the gold standard treatment for resectable esophageal cancer; however, there is insufficient evidence to indicate potential advantages over standard minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in treating thoracic esophageal cancer. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) bridges the gap between open and minimally invasive surgery. In this single-center retrospective review, we compare the clinical outcomes of EC patients treated with MIE and RAMIE.

Method

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent surgery at Qilu Hospital between August 2020 and August 2022, including 159 patients who underwent MIE and 35 patients who received RAMIE. The intraoperative, postoperative, and preoperative patient characteristics in both groups were evaluated.

Results

Except for height, the MIE and RAMIE groups showed no significant differences in preoperative features (P>0.05). Further, there were no significant differences in intraoperative indices, including TNM stage of the resected tumor, tumor tissue type, or ASA score, between the two groups. However, statistically significant differences were found in some factors; the RAMIE group had a shorter operative time, less intraoperative bleeding, and more lymph nodes removed compared to the MIE group. Patients in the RAMIE group reported less discomfort and greater chest drainage on the first postoperative day than patients in the MIE group; however, there were no differences in other features between the two datasets.

Conclusion

By comparing the clinical characteristics and outcomes of RAMIE with MIE, this study verified the feasibility and safety of RAMIE for esophageal cancer. Overall, RAMIE resulted in more complete lymph node clearance, shorter operating time, reduced surgical hemorrhage, reduced postoperative discomfort, and chest drainage alleviation in patients. To investigate the function of RAMIE in esophageal cancer, we propose undertaking a future clinical trial with long-term follow-up to analyze tumor clearance, recurrence, and survival after RAMIE.

Reducing the Risks of Esophagectomies: A Retrospective Comparison of Hybrid versus Full-Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE) Approaches

This retrospective analysis aimed to assess and compare the short-term perioperative outcomes and morbidity of hybrid and full-Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE) surgical techniques. A total of 168 robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy procedures performed at Muenster University Hospital were included in the study, with 63 cases in the hybrid group and 105 cases in the full-robotic group. Demographic factors, comorbidities, and tumor stages showed no significant differences between the two groups. However, the full-RAMIE technique demonstrated superiority in terms of overall operative time, postoperative pain levels, and patient morphine consumption. Additionally, the full-RAMIE group exhibited better perioperative outcomes, with significantly shorter ICU stays and fewer occurrences of pneumonias and severe complications. While there was a trend favoring the full-RAMIE technique in terms of severe postoperative complications and anastomotic insufficiencies, further research is required to establish it as the gold standard surgical technique for Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

Short-term outcome of totally minimally invasive versus hybrid minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy

OBJECTIVES

For resectable esophageal cancer, the choice of total minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) or hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term clinical outcomes of TMIE and HMIE under the Ivor-Lewis procedure.

METHODS

The data of 145 patients diagnosed with middle or lower esophageal cancer who underwent radical Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University between January 2018 and December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The short-term outcomes such as complications during surgery or within 30 days after surgery and postoperative pain were analyzed.

RESULTS

All patients were divided into TMIE group (75 patients) and HMIE group (70 patients). No significant difference was observed in the baseline characteristics of the two groups. TMIE was associated with less blood loss than the HMIE group (p < 0.05). A total of 54 (37.2%) patients had postoperative complications. Although the two groups were statistically similar in the incidence of major complications, patients in the HMIE group were more likely to have pneumonia compared with those in the TMIE group. The numeric rating scale for pain was significantly higher in the HMIE group (p = 0.002) and more patients required an additional opioid analgesia after esophagectomy (p = 0.282).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, according to perioperative outcomes, TMIE can benefit patients better than HMIE.

Exploring the learning curve in minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been shown to be superior to open esophagectomy with reduced morbidity, mortality, and comparable lymph node (LN) harvest. However, MIE is technically challenging. This study aims to perform a pooled analysis on the number of cases required to surmount the learning curve (LC), i.e. NLC in MIE. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for articles from inception to June 2022. Inclusion criteria were articles that reported LC in video-assisted MIE (VAMIE) and/or robot-assisted MIE (RAMIE). Poisson means (95% confidence interval [CI]) was used to determine NLC. Negative binomial regression was used for comparative analysis. There were 41 articles with 45 data sets (n = 7755 patients). The majority of tumors were located in the lower esophagus or gastroesophageal junction (66.7%, n = 3962/5939). The majority of data sets on VAMIE (n = 16/26, 61.5%) used arbitrary analysis, while the majority of data sets (n = 14/19, 73.7%) on RAMIE used cumulative sum control chart analysis. The most common outcomes reported were overall operating time (n = 30/45) and anastomotic leak (n = 28/45). Twenty-four data sets (53.3%) reported on LN harvest. The overall NLC was 34.6 (95% CI: 30.4-39.2), 68.5 (95% CI: 64.9-72.4), 27.5 (95% CI: 24.3-30.9), and 35.9 (95% CI: 32.1-40.2) for hybrid VAMIE, total VAMIE, hybrid RAMIE, and total RAMIE, respectively. NLC was significantly lower for total RAMIE compared to total VAMIE (incidence rate ratio: 0.52, P = 0.032). Studies reporting NLC in MIE are heterogeneous. Further studies should clearly define prior surgical experiences and assess long-term oncological outcomes using non-arbitrary analysis.

Robotic Versus Conventional Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To give a comprehensive review of the literature comparing perioperative outcomes and long-term survival with robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) versus minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND

Curative minimally invasive surgical treatment for esophageal cancer includes RAMIE and conventional MIE. It remains controversial whether RAMIE is comparable to MIE.

METHODS

This review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021260963). A systematic search of databases was conducted. Perioperative outcomes and long-term survival were analyzed and subgroup analysis was conducted. Cumulative meta-analysis was performed to track therapeutic effectiveness.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were included and a total of 2932 patients (92.88% squamous cell carcinoma, 29.83% neoadjuvant therapy, and 38.93% stage III-IV), 1418 underwent RAMIE and 1514 underwent MIE, were analyzed. The number of total lymph nodes (LNs) [23.35 (95% CI: 21.41-25.29) vs 21.98 (95% CI: 20.31-23.65); mean difference (MD) = 1.18; 95% CI: 0.06-2.30; P =0.04], abdominal LNs [9.05 (95% CI: 8.16-9.94) vs 7.75 (95% CI: 6.62-8.88); MD = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.19-1.89; P =0.02] and LNs along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve [1.74 (95% CI: 1.04-2.43) vs 1.34 (95% CI: 0.32-2.35); MD = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.09-0.35; P <0.001] were significantly higher in the RAMIE group. RAMIE is associated with a lower incidence of pneumonia [9.61% (95% CI: 7.38%-11.84%) vs 14.74% (95% CI: 11.62%-18.15%); odds ratio = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.58-0.93; P =0.01]. Meanwhile, other perioperative outcomes, such as operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, 30/90-day mortality, and R0 resection, showed no significant difference between the two groups. Regarding long-term survival, the 3-year overall survival was similar in the two groups, whereas patients undergoing RAMIE had a higher rate of 3-year disease-free survival compared with the MIE group [77.98% (95% CI: 72.77%-82.43%) vs 70.65% (95% CI: 63.87%-77.00%); odds ratio = 1.42; 95% CI: 1.11-1.83; P =0.006]. A cumulative meta-analysis conducted for each outcome demonstrated relatively stable effects in the two groups. Analyses of each subgroup showed similar overall outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

RAMIE is a safe and feasible alternative to MIE in the treatment of resectable esophageal cancer with comparable perioperative outcomes and seems to indicate a possible superiority in LNs dissection in the abdominal cavity, and LNs dissected along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve and 3-year disease-free survival in particular in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Further randomized studies are needed to better evaluate the long-term benefits of RAMIE compared with MIE.

Learning curve for adoption of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review of oncological, clinical, and efficiency outcomes

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is gaining increasing popularity as an operative approach. Learning curves to achieve surgical competency in robotic-assisted techniques have shown significant variation in learning curve lengths and outcomes. This study aimed to summarize the current literature on learning curves for RAMIE.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in line with PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched, and articles reporting on learning curves in RAMIE were identified and scrutinized. Studies were eligible if they reported changes in operative outcomes over time, or learning curves, for surgeons newly adopting RAMIE.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies reporting on 1767 patients were included. Nine studies reported on surgeons with prior experience of robot-assisted surgery prior to adopting RAMIE, with only four studies outlining a specified RAMIE adoption pathway. Learning curves were most commonly analyzed using cumulative sum control chart (CUSUM) and were typically reported for lymph node yields and operative times, with significant variation in learning curve lengths (18-73 cases and 20-80 cases, respectively). Most studies reported adoption without significant impact on clinical outcomes such as anastomotic leak; significant learning curves were more likely in studies, which did not report a formal learning or adoption pathway.

CONCLUSION

Reported RAMIE adoption phases are variable, with some authors suggesting significant impact to patients. With robust training through formal programmes or proctorship, however, others report RAMIE adoption without impact on clinical outcomes. A formalized adoption curriculum appears critical to prevent adverse effects on operative efficiency and patient care.

Semiprone thoracoscopic approach during totally minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy seems to be beneficial

Minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy (MIE) is widely accepted as a surgical treatment of resectable esophageal cancer. Aim of this paper is to describe the surgical details of our standardized MIE technique and its safety. We also evaluate the esophageal mobilization in semiprone compared to the left lateral position. A retrospective analysis of 141 consecutive patients who underwent Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for cancer, from February 2016 to September 2021, was conducted. All the procedures were performed by totally thoraco-laparoscopic with an intrathoracic end-to-side circular stapled anastomosis. Thoracic phase was performed in left lateral position (LLP-group, n=47) followed by a semiprone position (SP-group, n=94). The intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were prospectively collected and analyzed. The procedure was completed without intraoperative complication in 94.68% of cases in SP-group and in 93.62% of cases in LLP-group (P=0.99). The total operative time and thoracic operative time were significantly shorter in SP-group (P=0.0096; P=0.009). No statistically significant differences were detected in postoperative outcomes between the groups, except for anastomotic strictures (higher in LLP-group, P=0.02) and intensive care unit stay (longer in LLP-group, P=00.1). No reoperation was needed in any cases. Surgical radicality was comparable; the median of harvested lymph nodes was significantly higher in SP-group (P<0.0001). The present semiprone technique of thoraco-laparoscopic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy is safe and feasible but may also provide some advantages in terms of lymph nodes harvested and total operation time.

Robotic-Assisted Esophagectomy Leads to Significant Reduction in Postoperative Acute Pain: A Retrospective Clinical Trial

Background

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) shows promising results regarding postoperative complications in patients with esophageal cancer. To date, no data are available regarding postoperative analgesic consumption. The aim of this work is to evaluate analgesic consumption after esophagectomy.

Methods

A total of 274 Ivor Lewis esophageal resections performed sequentially from January 2012 to December 2020 were evaluated. RAMIE cases (n = 51) were compared with the hybrid technique (laparoscopic abdominal phase followed by open thoracotomy, n = 59) and open abdominothoracic esophagectomy (OTE) (n = 164). Data were collected retrospectively. The primary endpoint was the overall postoperative morphine consumption, which represents a reliable indirect measurement of pain. Pain levels recorded on the first, third, and fifth postoperative days were assessed as secondary endpoints.

Results

A total of 274 patients were included. The postoperative opioid consumption rate for patients who underwent RAMIE (quartiles: 0.14, 0.23, 0.36 mg morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/kg body weight (bw)/day) was significantly lower than in the open group (0.19, 0.33, 0.58 mg MME/kg bw/day, p = 0.016). The overall postoperative opioid consumption for patients who underwent RAMIE was significantly lower (2.45, 3.63, 7.20 mg MME/kg bw/day; morphine milligram equivalents per kilogram body weight) compared with the open (4.85, 8.59, 14.63 MME/kg bw/day, p < 0.0001) and hybrid (4.13, 6.84, 11.36 MME/kg bw/day, p = 0.008) groups. Patients who underwent RAMIE reported lower pain scores compared with the open group on the fifth postoperative day, both at rest (p = 0.004) and while performing activities (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

This study shows that patients who underwent RAMIE experienced similar postoperative pain while requiring significantly lower amounts of opioids compared with patients who underwent open and hybrid surgery. Further studies are required to verify the results.

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal cancer training curriculum-a worldwide Delphi consensus study

BACKGROUND

Structured training protocols can safely improve skills prior initiating complex surgical procedures such as robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). As no consensus on a training curriculum for RAMIE has been established so far it is our aim to define a protocol for RAMIE with the Delphi consensus methodology.

METHODS

Fourteen worldwide RAMIE experts were defined and were enrolled in this Delphi consensus project. An expert panel was created and three Delphi rounds were performed starting December 2019. Items required for RAMIE included, but were not limited to, virtual reality simulation, wet-lab training, proctoring, and continued monitoring and education. After rating performed by the experts, consensus was defined when a Cronbach alpha of ≥0.80 was reached. If ≥80% of the committee reached a consensus an item was seen as fundamental.

RESULTS

All Delphi rounds were completed by 12-14 (86-100%) participants. After three rounds analyzing our 49-item questionnaire, 40 items reached consensus for a training curriculum of RAMIE.

CONCLUSION

The core principles for RAMIE training were defined. This curriculum may lead to a wider adoption of RAMIE and a reduction in time to reach proficiency.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) vs. hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: propensity score matched short-term outcome analysis of a European high-volume center

INTRODUCTION

Transthoracic esophagectomy is a highly complex and sophisticated procedure with high morbidity rates and a significant mortality. Surgical access has consistently become less invasive, transitioning from open esophagectomy to hybrid esophagectomy (HE) then to totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), and most recently to robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE), with each step demonstrating improved patient outcomes. Aim of this study with more than 600 patients is to complete a propensity-score matched comparison of postoperative short-term outcomes after highly standardized RAMIE vs. HE in a European high volume center.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Six hundred and eleven patients that underwent transthoracic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between May 2016 and May 2021 were included in the study. In January 2019, we implemented an updated robotic standardized anastomotic technique using a circular stapler and ICG (indocyanine green) for RAMIE cases. Data were retrospectively analyzed from a prospectively maintained IRB-approved database. Outcomes of patients undergoing standardized RAMIE from January 2019 to May 2021 were compared to our overall cohort from May 2016-April 2021 (HE) after a propensity-score matching analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Six hundred and eleven patients were analyzed. 107 patients underwent RAMIE. Of these, a total of 76 patients underwent a robotic thoracic reconstruction using the updated standardized circular stapled anastomosis (RAMIE group). A total of 535 patients underwent HE (Hybrid group). Seventy patients were propensity-score matched in each group and analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics. RAMIE patients had a significantly shorter ICU stay (p = 0.0218). Significantly more patients had no postoperative complications (Clavien Dindo 0) in the RAMIE group [47.1% vs. 27.1% in the HE group (p = 0.0225)]. No difference was seen in lymph node yield and R0 resection rates. Anastomotic leakage rates when matched were 14.3% in the hybrid group vs. 4.3% in the RAMIE group (p = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis confirms the safety and feasibility of RAMIE and HE in a large cohort after propensity score matching. A regular postoperative course (Clavien-Dindo 0) and a shorter ICU stay were seen significantly more often after RAMIE compared to HE. Furthermore it shows that both procedures provide excellent short-term oncologic outcomes, regarding lymph node harvest and R0 resection rates. A randomized controlled trial comparing RAMIE and HE is still pending and will hopefully contribute to ongoing discussions.

Completely minimally invasive versus hybrid Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy for oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junctional cancer: a UK multi-centre comparative study

BACKGROUND

Limited robust evidence exists comparing outcomes following completely minimally invasive oesophagectomy (CMIO) to hybrid oesophagectomy (HO) in the treatment of resectable oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junctional (GOJ) cancer. This multi-centre study aims to assess postoperative morbidity between HO and CMIO according to the full Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) complication platform.

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing an Ivor-Lewis HO or Ivor-Lewis CMIO for cancer between 2016 and 2018 in three UK tertiary centres were included. The primary study outcome was 30-day overall complications, evaluated by the ECCG complication subgroups. Secondary outcomes included survival outcomes and perioperative parameters between the two approaches.

RESULTS

Of the 382 patients included, 228 (59.7%) patients had HOs and 154 (40.3%) patients had CMIOs with no inter-group baseline differences. Patients undergoing CMIO experienced less 30-day postoperative complications compared to those under undergoing HO (43.5% vs 57.0%, p = 0.010). ECCG defined pulmonary and infective complications were less frequent in the CMIO group. Anastomotic leak rates and oncological outcomes were similar between the two groups. Independent predictors of 30-day postoperative complications include surgical approach with HO and high ASA grade on multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Ivor-Lewis CMIO demonstrates superior short-term surgical outcomes when compared to Ivor-Lewis HO with no compromise in oncological feasibility. Anastomotic leak rates were equivalent between both groups. A robust randomised controlled trial is required to validate the findings of this study.

Effect of Phased Implementation of Totally Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer after Previous Adoption of the Hybrid Minimally Invasive Technique: Results from a French Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated improved short-term outcomes of totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) compared with open esophagectomy (OE); however, to what extent these outcomes can be extrapolated to a national level remains debatable.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate, on a nationwide basis, the short-term outcomes of TMIE and to analyze these results within the context of previously implemented hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE).

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent a curative Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in France between 2017 and 2019 were included in this retrospective cohort study. The primary endpoint was to compare 90-day postoperative mortality (POM) between OE, HMIE, and TMIE, while secondary endpoints were defined as the rate of postoperative complications. A matched and multivariate analysis was adjusted for confounding factors.

RESULTS

Overall, 2675 patients were included (1003 OE vs. 1498 HMIE vs. 174 TMIE). In every center where TMIE was performed, HMIE had been previously adopted. The matched 90-day POM rate in the TMIE group was significantly lower compared with the OE group (2.3% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.046) but not compared with the HMIE group (2.3% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.156). There was no significant difference between TMIE and OE, or TMIE and HMIE, regarding the 30-day fistula rate (21.8% vs. 17%, p = 0.176; and 21.8% vs. 21.3%, p = 0.88, respectively). TMIE was associated with a reduced rate of pulmonary complications compared with OE (33.9% vs. 44%, p = 0.027) and HMIE (33.9% vs. 42.8%, p = 0.05). Low-volume centers were identified as a negative predictive factor for 90-day POM (odds ratio 1.89, 95% confidence interval 1.3-2.75, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

TMIE is associated with a lower 90-day POM rate compared with OE and offers reduced rates of pulmonary complications compared with OE and HMIE. After previous adoption of the HMIE technique, TMIE can be safely implemented in high-volume centers nationwide.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been demonstrated to offer realistic three-dimensional visual clarity, flexible movement and so on. The high cost is the main reason hampering universal application. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of RAMIE versus video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE).

Methods

The PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to June 1, 2021, for studies comparing RAMIE and VAMIE.

Results

Nineteen studies were enrolled, which consisted of a total of 4,714 patients, including 2,306 patients in the RAMIE group and 2,408 patients in the VAMIE group. In RAMIE patients, higher numbers of total lymph nodes (MD =0.171, 95% CI: 0.086–0.255, P<0.001) and lymph nodes along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) (MD =0.219, 95% CI: 0.097–0.340, P<0.001) were removed. In RAMIE patients in the McKown group, higher numbers of total lymph nodes (MD =0.173, 95% CI: 0.080–0.265, P<0.001) and lymph nodes along the left RLN (MD =0.220, 95% CI: 0.090–0.350, P=0.001) were removed, while in those in the ESCC group, higher numbers of total lymph nodes (MD =0.249, 95% CI: 0.091–0.407, P=0.002) and lymph nodes along the left RLN (MD =0.239, 95% CI: 0.102–0.377, P=0.001) were removed.

Discussion

This study indicated that the main advantage of RAMIE was a greater number of harvested lymph nodes, which may be beneficial to diagnosis and local control. RCTs with larger sample sizes and studies reporting long-term outcomes are needed to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of RAMIE and VAMIE.

Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-thoracoscopic technique. Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence comparing conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (CMIE) via laparoscopy and thoracoscopy with robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is scarce. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare surgical outcomes after CMIE and RAMIE with an intrathoracic anastomosis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify original articles analyzing outcomes after CMIE and RAMIE. Main surgical outcomes included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, anastomotic leak rates, pneumonia, overall morbidity, length of stay (LOS), and 30-day mortality. Oncologic outcomes included lymph node yield and R0 resections rates. A meta-analysis of proportions and linear regression models were used to assess the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 6,249 patients were included for analysis; 5,275 (84%) underwent CMIE and 974 (16%) RAMIE. Robotic esophagectomy had longer operative time and less intraoperative blood loss. Anastomotic leakage rates were similar with both approaches. Patients undergoing RAMIE had significantly lower rates of postoperative pneumonia (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.61, P < .0001) and overall morbidity (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58-0.79, P < .0001). Median LOS was similar in both procedures (RAMIE: 12.1 versus CMIE: 11.9 days, P = .64). Similar mortality rates were found after RAMIE and CMIE (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34-1.38, P = .29). Lymph node yield was similar in both procedures, but RAMIE was associated with higher rates of R0 resection (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.53-5.26, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing robotic esophagectomy have less intraoperative blood loss, lower rates of postoperative pneumonia, reduced overall morbidity, and higher rates of R0 resections, as compared with those undergoing a laparoscopic-thoracoscopic esophageal resection.

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.

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.

A structured training pathway to implement robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: the learning curve results from a high-volume center

To ensure safe implementation of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE), the learning process should be optimized. This study aimed to report the results of a surgeon who implemented RAMIE in a German high-volume center by following a tailored and structured training pathway that involved proctoring. Consecutive patients who underwent RAMIE during the course of the program were included from a prospective database. A single surgeon, who had prior experience in conventional MIE, performed all RAMIE procedures. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) learning curves were plotted for the thoracic operating time and intraoperative blood loss. Perioperative outcomes were compared between patients who underwent surgery before and after a learning curve plateau occurred. Between 2017 and 2018, the adopting center adhered to the structured training pathway, and a total of 70 patients were included in the analysis. The CUSUM learning curves showed plateaus after 22 cases. In consecutive cases 23 to 70, the operating time was shorter for both the thoracic phase (median 215 vs. 249 minutes, P = 0.001) and overall procedure (median 394 vs. 440 minutes, P = 0.005), intraoperative blood loss was less (median 210 vs. 400 milliliters, P = 0.029), and lymph node yield was higher (median 32 vs. 23 nodes, P = 0.001) when compared to cases 1 to 22. No significant differences were found in terms of conversion rates, postoperative complications, length of stay, completeness of resection, or mortality. In conclusion, the structured training pathway resulted in a short and safe learning curve for RAMIE in this single center's experience. As the pathway seems effective in implementing RAMIE without compromising the early oncological outcomes and complication rates, it is advised for surgeons who are wanting to adopt this technique.

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.

Completely Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Hybrid Esophagectomy for Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Junctional Cancer: Clinical and Short-Term Oncological Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery for resectable esophageal and gastroesophageal junctional (GEJ) cancer significantly reduces morbidity when compared with open surgery, as is evident from published landmark trials. Comparison of outcomes between hybrid esophagectomy (HE) and completely minimally invasive esophagectomy (CMIE) remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to ascertain whether CMIE is associated with less postoperative complications compared with HE without oncological compromise.

METHODS

All consecutive two-stage HEs and CMIEs performed between 2016 and 2018 were included. All procedures were performed with an intrathoracic anastomosis. Primary clinical outcomes were pulmonary infective and overall complications within 30 days of surgery, while primary oncological outcomes included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at both 6 months and to date. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative variables and postoperative clinical parameters.

RESULTS

Overall, 98 patients had CMIEs and 49 patients had HEs. There were no baseline differences between the two groups. Thirty-day postoperative pulmonary infection rates were lower in the CMIE group compared with the HE group (12.2% vs. 28.6%; p = 0.014), and 30-day overall postoperative complication rates were also lower following CMIE (35.7% vs. 59.2%; p = 0.007). OS and DFS were similar between the two groups at 6 months (p = 0.201 and p = 0.109, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

CMIE is associated with less pulmonary infective and overall postoperative complications compared with HE for resectable esophageal and GEJ cancer. No intergroup difference was observed regarding short-term survival and cancer recurrence in patients undergoing CMIE and HE. A randomized controlled trial comparing the two operative approaches is required to validate these findings.

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.

Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing HMIE with TMIE. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles comparing HMIE and TMIE were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. The primary outcome was pneumonia. Sensitivity analysis was performed by analyzing outcome for open chest hybrid MIE versus total TMIE and open abdomen MIE versus TMIE separately. Therefore, subgroup analysis was performed for laparoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, thoracoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, Ivor Lewis HMIE versus Ivor Lewis TMIE, and McKeown HMIE versus McKeown TMIE. There were no randomized controlled trials. Twenty-nine studies with a total of 3732 patients were included. Studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. In the main analysis, the pooled incidence of pneumonia was 19.0% after HMIE and 9.8% after TMIE which was not significantly different between the groups (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97-2.20). TMIE was associated with a lower incidence of wound infections (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.13-2.90) and less blood loss (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.34-1.22) but with longer operative time (SMD:-0.33, 95% CI: -0.59--0.08). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy-assisted HMIE was associated with a higher lymph node count than TMIE, and Ivor Lewis HMIE was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate than Ivor Lewis TMIE. In general, TMIE was associated with moderately lower morbidity compared to HMIE, but randomized controlled evidence is lacking. The higher leakage rate and lower lymph node count that was found after TMIE in sensitivity analysis indicate that TMIE can also have disadvantages. The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully by surgeons when moving from HMIE to TMIE.

Modular step-up approach to robot-assisted transthoracic esophagectomy-experience of a German high volume center

Background

The use of robotic technology in general surgery is rapidly increasing in Europe. Aim of this study is to evaluate the introduction of new robotic technologies in a center of excellence for upper gastrointestinal surgery.

Methods

A standardized teaching protocol of a complete OR team was performed in simulation and animal models at the Center for the Future of Surgery (San Diego CA, USA) and IRCAD (Strasbourg, France) to receive certification as console surgeons. Starting 02/2017 the daVinci Xi and Stryker ICG laparoscopy systems were introduced at our academic center (certified center of excellence for surgery of the upper gastrointestinal tract, n>300 upper gastrointestinal cases/year). After simple training procedures based on our minimally invasive expertise were performed, difficulty was increased based on a modular step up approach to finally perform robotic assisted transthoracic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

Results

A total of 70 patients (9 females) fulfilled inclusion criteria to our study. Robotic assisted esophagectomy was divided into six modules. Level of difficulty was increased based on our modular step up approach without quality compromises. There were no intraoperative complications and no unplanned conversions to open surgery. Two surgeons were able to sequentially train and perform a completely robotic transthoracic esophagectomy using this modular approach without a substantial learning curve. A total of ten esophagectomies per surgeon were necessary to complete all modules in one case.

Conclusions

The standardized training protocol and the University of Cologne modular step up approach allowed safe introduction of the new technology used. All cases were performed safely without operation-associated complications.