Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma, a randomized controlled trial (ROBOT-2 trial)

Minimally invasive vs open vs hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal carcinoma has emerged as the contemporary alternative to conventional laparoscopic minimally invasive (LMIE), hybrid (HE) and open (OE) surgical approaches. No single study has compared all four approaches with a view to postoperative outcomes. A systematic search of electronic databases was undertaken. A network meta-analysis was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-network meta-analysis guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using R and Shiny. Seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 1063 patients were included. Overall, 32.9% of patients underwent OE (350/1063), 11.0% underwent HE (117/1063), 34.0% of patients underwent LMIE (361/1063), and 22.1% of patients underwent RAMIE (235/1063). OE had the lowest anastomotic leak rate 7.7% (27/350), while LMIE had the lowest pulmonary 10.8% (39/361), cardiac 0.56% (1/177) complications, re-intervention rates 5.08% (12/236), 90-day mortality 1.05% (2/191), and shortest length of hospital stay (mean 11.25 days). RAMIE displayed the lowest 30-day mortality rate at 0.80% (2/250). There was a significant increase in pulmonary complications for those undergoing OE (OR 3.63 [95% confidence interval: 1.4-9.77]) when compared to RAMIE. LMIE is a safe and feasible option for esophagectomy when compared to OE and HE. The upcoming RCTs will provide further data to make a more robust interrogation of the surgical outcomes following RAMIE compared to conventional open surgery to determine equipoise or superiority of each approach as the era of minimally invasive esophagectomy continues to evolve (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Registration: CRD42023438790).

Oesophageal cancer

Oesophageal cancer is the seventh leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Two major pathological subtypes exist: oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma and oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Epidemiological studies in the last decade have shown a gradual increase in the incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma worldwide. The prognosis of oesophageal cancer has greatly improved due to breakthroughs in screening, surgical procedures, and novel treatment modalities. The success achieved with combined modality therapies, including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, to treat locally advanced oesophageal cancer is particularly notable. Immunotherapy has become a crucial treatment for oesophageal cancer, with immune checkpoint inhibitor-based therapies now established as the standard of care in adjuvant and metastatic first-line settings. This Seminar provides an overview of advances in the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma and oesophageal adenocarcinoma, with a particular focus on neoadjuvant therapies for locally advanced oesophageal cancer and immune checkpoint inhibitor-based therapies.

The Current State of Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE): Outcomes from the Upper GI International Robotic Association (UGIRA) Esophageal Registry

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is increasingly adopted in centers worldwide, with ongoing refinements to enhance results. This study aims to assess the current state of RAMIE worldwide and to identify potential areas for improvement.

METHODS

This descriptive study analyzed prospective data from esophageal cancer patients who underwent transthoracic RAMIE in Upper GI International Robotic Association (UGIRA) centers. Main endpoints included textbook outcome rate, surgical techniques, and perioperative outcomes. Analyses were performed separately for intrathoracic (Ivor-Lewis) and cervical anastomosis (McKeown), divided into three time cohorts (2016-2018, 2019-2020, 2021-2023). A sensitivity analysis was conducted with cases after the learning curve (> 70 cases).

RESULTS

Across 28 UGIRA centers, 2012 Ivor-Lewis and 1180 McKeown procedures were performed. Over the time cohorts, textbook outcome rates were 39%, 48%, and 49% for Ivor-Lewis, and 49%, 63%, and 61% for McKeown procedures, respectively. Fully robotic procedures accounted for 66%, 51%, and 60% of Ivor-Lewis procedures, and 53%, 81%, and 66% of McKeown procedures. Lymph node yield showed 27, 30, and 30 nodes in Ivor-Lewis procedures, and 26, 26, and 34 nodes in McKeown procedures. Furthermore, high mediastinal lymphadenectomy was performed in 65%, 43%, and 37%, and 70%, 48%, and 64% of Ivor-Lewis and McKeown procedures, respectively. Anastomotic leakage rates were 22%, 22%, and 16% in Ivor-Lewis cases, and 14%, 12%, and 11% in McKeown cases. Hospital stay was 13, 14, and 13 days for Ivor-Lewis procedures, and 12, 9, and 11 days for McKeown procedures. In Ivor-Lewis and McKeown, respectively, the sensitivity analysis revealed textbook outcome rates of 43%, 54%, and 51%, and 47%, 64%, and 64%; anastomotic leakage rates of 28%, 18%, and 15%, and 13%, 11%, and 10%; and hospital stay of 11, 12, and 12 days, and 10, 9, and 9 days.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates favorable outcomes over time in achieving textbook outcome after RAMIE. Areas for improvement include a reduction of anastomotic leakage and shortening of hospital stay.

Opinion, uptake and current practice of robot-assisted upper gastrointestinal and oesophagogastric surgery in the UK: AUGIS national survey results

INTRODUCTION

The uptake of upper gastrointestinal (GI) robotic surgery in the United Kingdom (UK), and Europe more widely, is expanding rapidly. This study aims to present a current snapshot of the practice and opinions of the upper GI community with reference to robotic surgery, with an emphasis on tertiary cancer (oesophagogastric) resection centres.

METHODS

An electronic survey was circulated to the UK upper GI surgical community via national mailing lists, social media and at an open-invitation conference on robotic upper GI surgery in January 2023. The survey included questions on surgeons' current practice or planned adoption (if any) of robotics at individual and unit level, and their opinions on robotic upper GI surgery in general. Priority ranking and Likert-scale response options were used.

RESULTS

In total, 81 respondents from 43 hospitals were included. Thirty-four resectional centres responded, including 30 of 31 (97%) recognised upper GI cancer centres in England. Respondents reported performing robotic surgery in 21 of 34 (61.8%) resectional centres, with a median of 65 procedures per centre performed at the time of the survey (range 0-500, interquartile range 93.75). Every centre without a robotic programme expressed a desire or had active plans to implement one. Respondents ranked surgeon ergonomics as the most important reason for pursuing robotics, followed by improvements in patient outcomes and oncological efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic upper GI practice is nascent but rapidly growing in the UK with plans for uptake in almost all tertiary centres. There is growing opinion that this is likely to become the predominant surgical approach in future with benefits to both patients and surgeons. This snapshot offers a point of reference to all stakeholders in upper GI surgery.

Caseload per Year in Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Narrative Review

Esophageal surgery is deemed one of the most complex visceral operations. There is a well-documented correlation between higher caseload and better outcomes, with hospitals that perform more surgeries experiencing significantly lower mortality rates. The approach to caseload per year varies across different countries within Europe. Germany increased the minimum annual required caseload of complex esophageal surgeries from 10 to 26 starting in 2023. Furthermore, the new regulations present challenges for surgical training and staff recruitment, risking the further fragmentation of training programs. Enhanced regional cooperation is proposed as a solution to ensure comprehensive training. This review explores the benefits of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in improving surgical precision and patient outcomes and aims to evaluate how the caseload per year influences the quality of patient care and the efficacy of surgical training, especially with the integration of advanced robotic techniques.

Efficacy and complications of endoscopic thoracoscopic versus laparoscopic radical esophagectomy in esophageal cancer treatment: A retrospective study

To evaluate the efficacy and postoperative complications of endoscopic thoracoscopic and laparoscopic radical esophagectomy compared to open surgery in esophageal cancer treatment. This retrospective study included 103 esophageal cancer patients admitted from August 2018 to March 2022, divided into observation (endoscopic surgery) and control (open surgery) groups. We compared intraoperative parameters, postoperative outcomes, immune function, and one-year overall survival (OS). Intraoperative bleeding volume, the retention time of chest tube, postoperative fasting time, and hospital stay in the observation group were smaller than those in the control group (P < .05). The differences were not statistically significant (P > .05) when comparing operative time, the number of intraoperative blood transfusion cases, and the rate of operating room extubation in these 2 groups. The differences were not statistically significant when comparing the amount of resected lymph nodes and the positive rate of incisal edge in these 2 groups (P > .05). There was no statistically significant difference in the complication rates such as pneumonia, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, pulmonary embolism, anastomotic fistula, the leakage of thoracic duct, the injury of RLN and arrhythmia in these 2 groups (P > .05). At 7 days postoperatively, the CD4+ and CD4+/CD8+ in the observation group and the control group were smaller than the preoperative ones in their same groups, and they were larger in the observation group than those in the control group (P < .05); There was no statistically significant difference on the CD8+ in the observation group and the control group at 7 days postoperatively compared with the preoperative ones in their same groups (P > .05). The 1-year postoperative OS rate was 81.63% (40/49) in the observation group and 72.22% (39/54) in the control group, and the difference was not statistically significant when comparing the OS rates of these 2 groups (P = .238, HR = 0.622, 95% CI = 0.279-1.385). Endoscopic thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy offers less invasive treatment with significant short-term benefits and better preservation of immune function in esophageal cancer patients, making it a safe and effective surgical option.

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.

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.

Technical feasibility and oncological outcomes of robotic esophagectomy compared with conventional thoracoscopic esophagectomy for clinical T3 or T4 locally advanced esophageal cancer: a propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is the first-line approach for esophageal cancer; however, there has recently been a paradigm shift toward robotic esophagectomy (RE). We investigated the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent RE compared with those of patients who underwent conventional minimally invasive thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) for locally advanced cT3 or cT4 esophageal cancer using a propensity-matched analysis.

METHODS

Overall, 342 patients with locally advanced cT3 or cT4 esophageal cancer underwent transthoracic esophagectomy with total mediastinal lymph node dissection between 2018 and 2022. The propensity-matched analysis was performed to assign the patients to either RE or TE by covariates of histological type, tumor location, and clinical N factor.

RESULTS

Overall, 87 patients were recruited in each of the RE and TE groups according to the propensity-matched analysis. The total complication rate and the rates of the three major complications (recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis, anastomotic leakage, and pneumonia) were not significantly different between the RE and TE groups. However, the peak C-reactive protein concentration on postoperative day 3, rate of surgical site infection, and intensive care unit length of stay after surgery were significantly shorter in the RE group than in the TE group. No significant differences were observed in the harvested total and mediastinal lymph nodes. The total operation time was significantly longer in the RE group, while the thoracic operation time was shorter in the RE group than in the TE group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the recurrence rate of oncological outcomes after surgery.

CONCLUSION

RE may facilitate early recovery after esophagectomy with total mediastinal lymph node dissection and has the same technical feasibility and oncological outcomes as TE.

Advances in diagnosis and management of cancer of the esophagus

Esophageal cancer is the seventh most common malignancy worldwide, with over 470 000 new cases diagnosed each year. Two distinct histological subtypes predominate, and should be considered biologically separate disease entities.1 These subtypes are esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Outcomes remain poor regardless of subtype, with most patients presenting with late stage disease.2 Novel strategies to improve early detection of the respective precursor lesions, squamous dysplasia, and Barrett's esophagus offer the potential to improve outcomes. The introduction of a limited number of biologic agents, as well as immune checkpoint inhibitors, is resulting in improvements in the systemic treatment of locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer. These developments, coupled with improvements in minimally invasive surgical and endoscopic treatment approaches, as well as adaptive and precision radiotherapy technologies, offer the potential to improve outcomes still further. This review summarizes the latest advances in the diagnosis and management of esophageal cancer, and the developments in understanding of the biology of this disease.

Totally minimally invasive laparoscopic robot-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: improved technique and outcomes over 200 cases

Background

Surgical resection of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancers is a very complex procedure with step learning curve. New technologies have made minimally invasive surgery possible, but challenges still remain for wide spread adoption of these techniques. This article aims to describe the outcomes and salient technical points of a totally minimally invasive, laparoscopic, robot-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (LRAMIE).

Methods

Retrospective observational cohort study performed at a specialty cancer center using a prospectively maintained institutional database. Patients undergoing LRAMIE (laparoscopic abdomen, robotic chest) from 2014-2023 were included. Patients undergoing transhiatal and three-field esophagectomy were excluded. Operative and postoperative outcomes were compared over the study period to identify potential associations between outcomes over time.

Results

Two-hundred patients were identified who underwent LRAMIE. Median age was 65 years and most were male (87.5%). The open conversion rate was 1% (n=2), which occurred within the first 30 cases. Operative time and blood loss were improved at the 60-case mark (P<0.001). Anastomotic stricture rate improved after 50 cases, and leak rate improved after 80 cases. Postoperative length of stay improved at both 50 and 100 cases with a median LOS of 6 days after 100 cases. Rate of postoperative pneumonia, 30- and 90-day mortality were reduced after 100 cases, although not statistically significant for mortality due to too few events.

Conclusions

Totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy at a high-volume center is a safe procedure. Operative outcomes improved significantly after 50-80 cases, followed by improvement in anastomotic results and postoperative outcomes, with corresponding excellent oncologic outcomes.

History and evidence for state of the art of lymphadenectomy in esophageal cancer surgery

The current curative multimodal treatment of advanced esophageal cancers consists of neoadjuvant or perioperative chemo(radio)therapy followed by a radical surgical resection of the primary tumor and a 2- or 3-field lymphadenectomy. One of the most important predictors of long-term survival of esophageal cancer patients is lymph node involvement. The distribution pattern of lymph node metastases in esophageal cancer is unpredictable and depends on the primary tumor location, histology, T-stage and application of neoadjuvant or perioperative treatment. The optimal extent of the lymphadenectomy remains controversial; there is no global consensus on this topic yet. Some surgeons advocate an aggressive and extended lymph node dissection to remove occult metastatic disease, to optimize oncological outcomes. Others promote a more restricted lymphadenectomy, since the benefit of an extended lymphadenectomy, especially after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, has not been clearly demonstrated, and morbidity may be reduced. In this review, we describe the development of lymphadenectomy, followed by a summary of current evidence for lymphadenectomy in esophageal cancer treatment.

Antimicrobial Prophylaxis With Ampicillin-sulbactam Compared With Cefazolin for Esophagectomy: Nationwide Inpatient Database Study in Japan

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of antimicrobial prophylaxis with ampicillin-sulbactam (ABPC/SBT) compared with cefazolin (CEZ) on the short-term outcomes after esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND

CEZ is widely used for antimicrobial prophylaxis in esophagectomy without procedure-specific evidence, whereas ABPC/SBT is preferred in some hospitals to target both aerobic and anaerobic oral bacteria.

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer between July 2010 and March 2019 were extracted from a nationwide Japanese inpatient database. Overlap propensity score weighting was conducted to compare the short-term outcomes [including surgical site infection (SSI), anastomotic leakage, and respiratory failure] between antimicrobial prophylaxis with CEZ and ABPC/SBT after adjusting for potential confounders. Sensitivity analyses were also performed using propensity score matching and instrumental variable analyses.

RESULTS

Among 17,772 eligible patients, 16,077 (90.5%) and 1695 (9.5%) patients were administered CEZ and ABPC/SBT, respectively. SSI, anastomotic leakage, and respiratory failure occurred in 2971 (16.7%), 2604 (14.7%), and 2754 patients (15.5%), respectively. After overlap weighting, ABPC/SBT was significantly associated with a reduction in SSI [odds ratio 0.51 (95% CI: 0.43-0.60)], anastomotic leakage [0.51 (0.43-0.61)], and respiratory failure [0.66 (0.57-0.77)]. ABPC/SBT was also associated with reduced respiratory complications, postoperative length of stay, and total hospitalization costs. The proportion of Clostridioides difficile colitis and noninfectious complications did not differ between the groups. Propensity score matching and instrumental variable analyses demonstrated equivalent results.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of ABPC/SBT as antimicrobial prophylaxis for esophagectomy was associated with better short-term postoperative outcomes compared with CEZ.

Anterior gastric wall anastomosis may lead to lower rate of delayed gastric emptying after minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

In minimally invasive esophagectomy, a circular stapled anastomosis is common, but no evidence exists investigating the role of the specific localization of the anastomosis. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of an esophagogastrostomy on the anterior or posterior wall of the gastric conduit on the postoperative outcomes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All oncologic minimally invasive Ivor Lewis procedures, performed between 2017 and 2022, were included in this study. The cohort was divided in two groups: a) intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy on the anterior gastric wall of the conduit (ANT, n = 285, 65%) and b) on the posterior gastric wall (POST, n = 154, 35%). Clinicopathological parameters and short-term outcomes were compared between both groups by retrieving data from the prospective database.

RESULTS

Overall, 439 patients were included, baseline characteristics were similar in both groups, there was a higher proportion of squamous cell carcinoma in ANT (22.8% vs. 16.2%, P = 0.043). A higher rate of robotic-assisted procedures was observed in ANT (71.2% vs. 49.4%). Anastomotic leakage rate was similar in both groups (ANT 10.4% vs. POST 9.8%, P = 0.851). Overall complication rate and Clavien-Dindo > 3 complication rates were higher in POST compared to ANT: 53.2% vs. 40% (P = 0.008) and 36.9% vs. 25.7% (P = 0.014), respectively. The rate of delayed gastric emptying (20.1% vs. 7.4%, P < 0.001) and nosocomial pneumonia (22.1% vs. 14.8%, P = 0.05) was significantly higher in POST.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with an intrathoracic circular stapled anastomosis may benefit from esophagogastrostomy on the anterior wall of the gastric conduit, in terms of lower rate of delayed gastric emptying.

Laparoscopic or open abdominal surgery with thoracotomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: ROMIO randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated if hybrid oesophagectomy with minimally invasive gastric mobilization and thoracotomy enabled faster recovery than open surgery.

METHODS

In eight UK centres, this pragmatic RCT recruited patients for oesophagectomy to treat localized cancer. Participants were randomly allocated to hybrid or open surgery, stratified by centre and receipt of neoadjuvant treatment. Large dressings aimed to mask patients to their allocation for six days post-surgery. The authors present the intention-to-treat analysis of outcome measures from the first 3 months post-randomization, including the primary outcome, the patient-reported physical function scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30, and cost-effectiveness. Current Controlled Trials registration: ISRCTN 59036820 (feasibility study), 10386621 (definitive study).

FINDINGS

There was no evidence of a difference between hybrid (n = 267) and open (n = 266) surgery in average physical function over 3 months post-randomization: difference in means 2.1, 95% c.i. -2.0 to 6.2, P = 0.3. Complication rates were similar; for example, 88 (34%) participants in the open and 82 (32%) participants in the hybrid surgery groups experienced a pulmonary infection within 30 days. There was no evidence that hybrid surgery was more cost-effective than open surgery at 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-reported physical function in the 3 months post-randomization provided no evidence of a difference in recovery time between hybrid and open surgery, or a difference in cost-effectiveness. Both approaches to surgery were completed safely, with a similar risk of key complications, suggesting that surgeons who have a preference for one of the two approaches need not change their practice.

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

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

The current application and evidence for robotic approach in abdominal surgery: A narrative literature review

The current application of robotic surgery is evolving at a high pace in the current years. The technical advantages enable several abdominal surgical procedures to be performed minimally invasive instead of open surgery. Furthermore, procedures previously performed successfully using standard laparoscopy are now performed with a robotic approach, with conflicting results. The present narrative review reports the current literature on the robotic surgical procedures typically performed in a typical Scandinavian surgical department: colorectal, hernia, hepato-biliary, and esophagogastric surgery.

Clinical outcomes of the robot-assisted Ivor Lewis procedure for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction with semi-instrument overlap intrathoracic anastomosis

Background

The main difficulty of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis (IL) procedure for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEGJ) is the intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis (IEA). We aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of the IL procedure with the da Vinci surgical system for treatment of AEGJ with semi-mechanical intrathoracic IEA.

Methods

The cohort included 72 patients with AEGJ who received treatment at the Department of Minimally Invasive Esophagus Surgery of the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital from August 2020 to March 2023. Of these 72 patients, 17 received neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy. The robot-assisted minimally invasive IL procedure was performed using a linear stapler for overlap side-to-side intrathoracic anastomosis and the stapler defect was closed with double full-layer continuous sutures by robotic hand-sewn (semi-mechanical) IEA.

Results

Of the 72 AEGJ patients, 2 were converted to exploration, 7 were converted to laparotomy and thoracotomy for circular-stapled intrathoracic anastomosis, and 6 were converted to thoracotomy for circular-stapled anastomosis, which included 2 cases of extensive pleural adhesion and 4 cases of overlap anastomosis failure, whereas 57 underwent the robot-assisted minimally invasive IL procedure with semi-mechanical IEA. Among the 9 patients converted to laparotomy, the laparotomy rate was closely related to the Siewert classification (P<0.005) and preoperative use of neoadjuvant therapy (P<0.05). Among the 57 patients who underwent the robot-assisted minimally invasive IL procedure with semi-mechanical IEA, there were 2 cases of anastomotic leakages (2/57, 3.5%), no case of anastomotic stricture, 5 cases of postoperative pneumonia (5/57, 8.77%), 2 cases of intensive care unit admission (2/57, 3.5%), and 1 case of readmission within 30 days (1/57, 1.75%). None of the patients died within 30 days after surgery.

Conclusions

The robot-assisted minimally invasive IL procedure with semi-mechanical IEA is both safe and feasible for AEGJ. However, caution is advised for patients with Siewert type III AEGJ and those who have already received preoperative neoadjuvant therapy.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted and video-assisted esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is a recently developed technique for the treatment of resectable esophageal cancer. The present study compares the outcomes of RAMIE and video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (VATE).

METHOD

Patients undergoing minimally invasive esophageal surgery between December 2020 and September 2022 were included in the study, while those undergoing conventional surgery were excluded. The patients were divided into two groups, as those undergoing RAMIE (Group 1) and those undergoing VATE (Group 2). The demographic and clinical characteristics, intraoperative parameters, pathological data, and postoperative parameters of the groups were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 28 patients were included in the study, with 13 patients in Group 1 and 15 patients in Group 2. The gender distribution was similar (P = 0.488), and the mean age was 64.7 and 59.0 years in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.068). The majority of the sample was in the ASA2 category (46.2% vs. 66.7%, P = 0.341); Ca19.9 levels were higher in Group 1 than in Group 2 (25.7 vs. 13.7, P = 0.027); preoperative Hb was lower in Group 1 than in Group 2 (10.9 g/dL vs. 12.2 g/dL, P = 0.043); the most commonly performed surgery was the McKeown procedure (69.2% vs. 66.7%, P = 0.492); an intraoperative feeding jejunostomy was placed only in Group 2; the operation time was similar between the groups (338.5 min vs. 340 min, P = 0.916); and the distribution of tumor localizations was similar between the groups (P = 0.407). In terms of tumor histology, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) was the most common tumor type in the two groups (84.6% vs. 80%, P = 0.636); the tumor diameter was similar between the groups (14.9 vs. 18.1, P = 0.652); the number of removed lymph nodes was similar between the groups (24.9 vs. 22.5, P = 0.419); and the number of metastatic lymph nodes was higher in Group 2 (0.08 vs. 1.07, P = 0.27). One patient in Group 2 underwent repeat surgery due to suspected ischemic anastomosis; the distribution of postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system was similar in the two groups (P = 0.650); there was no early mortality within the first 30 days in either group; one patient in Group 2 was re-admitted within 90 days of discharge with decreased oral intake; the length of hospital stay was shorter in Group 1 (9 days vs. 16.5 days, P = 0.006); and the patients in Group 2 more often received neoadjuvant therapy in proportion to the disease stage (15.4% vs. 60%, P = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

Robotic procedures can be safely performed in esophageal cancers with complication rates and oncological radicality similar to those of other minimally invasive techniques.

Prince and princesses: The current status of robotic surgery in surgical oncology

Robotic surgery has experienced a dramatic increase in utilization across general surgery over the last two decades, including in surgical oncology. Although urologists and gynecologists were the first to show that this technology could be utilized in cancer surgery, the robot is now a powerful tool in the treatment of gastrointestinal, hepato-pancreatico-biliary, colorectal, endocrine, and soft tissue malignancies. While long-term outcomes are still pending, short-term outcomes have showed promise for this technologic advancement of cancer surgery.

Surgical and Perioperative Treatments for Esophagogastric Junction Cancer

Esophagogastric junction cancer (EGJC) is a rare malignant disease that occurs in the gastroesophageal transition zone. In recent years, its incidence has been rapidly increasing not only in Western countries but also in East Asia, and it has been attracting the attention of both clinicians and researchers. EGJC has a worse prognosis than gastric cancer (GC) and is characterized by complex lymphatic drainage pathways in the mediastinal and abdominal regions. EGJC was previously treated in the same way as GC or esophageal cancer, but, in recent years, it has been treated as an independent malignant disease, and treatment focusing only on EGJC has been developed. A recent multicenter prospective study revealed the frequency of lymph node metastasis by station and established the optimal extent of lymph node dissection. In perioperative treatment, the combination of multi-drug chemotherapy, radiation therapy, molecular targeted therapy, and immunotherapy is expected to improve the prognosis. In this review, we summarize previous clinical trials and their important evidence on surgical and perioperative treatments for EGJC.

Robotic-Assisted Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy Is Safe and Cost Equivalent Compared to Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in a Tertiary Referral Center

In recent decades, robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been increasingly adopted for patients with esophageal cancer (EC) or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). However, concerns regarding its costs compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) have emerged. This study examined outcomes and costs of RAMIE versus total MIE in 128 patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for EC/GEJ at our department between 2017 and 2021. Surgical costs were higher for RAMIE (EUR 12,370 vs. EUR 10,059, p < 0.001). Yet, median daily (EUR 2023 vs. EUR 1818, p = 0.246) and total costs (EUR 30,510 vs. EUR 29,180, p = 0.460) were comparable. RAMIE showed a lower incidence of postoperative pneumonia (8% vs. 25%, p = 0.029) and a trend towards shorter hospital stays (15 vs. 17 days, p = 0.205), which may have equalized total costs. Factors independently associated with higher costs included readmission to the intensive care unit (hazard ratio [HR] = 7.0), length of stay (HR = 13.5), anastomotic leak (HR = 17.0), and postoperative pneumonia (HR = 5.4). In conclusion, RAMIE does not impose an additional financial burden. This suggests that RAMIE may be considered as a valid alternative approach for esophagectomy. Attention to typical cost factors can enhance postoperative care across surgical methods.

Esophageal cancer - French intergroup clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatments and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, SFP, RENAPE, SNFCP, AFEF, SFR)

INTRODUCTION

This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of esophageal cancer (EC) published in July 2022, available on the website of the French Society of Gastroenterology (SNFGE) (www.tncd.org).

METHODS

This collaborative work was conducted under the auspices of several French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of EC. Recommendations were graded in three categories (A, B and C), according to the level of evidence found in the literature until April 2022.

RESULTS

EC diagnosis and staging evaluation are mainly based on patient's general condition assessment, endoscopy plus biopsies, TAP CT-scan and 18F FDG-PET. Surgery alone is recommended for early-stage EC, while locally advanced disease (N+ and/or T3-4) is treated with perioperative chemotherapy (FLOT) or preoperative chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by immunotherapy for adenocarcinoma. Preoperative chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by immunotherapy or definitive chemoradiation with the possibility of organ preservation are the two options for squamous cell carcinoma. Salvage surgery is recommended for incomplete response or recurrence after definitive chemoradiation and should be performed in an expert center. Treatment for metastatic disease is based on systemic therapy including chemotherapy, immunotherapy or combined targeted therapy according to biomarkers testing such as HER2 status, MMR status and PD-L1 expression.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines are intended to provide a personalised therapeutic strategy for daily clinical practice and are subject to ongoing optimization. Each individual case should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team.

Short-Term Outcomes and Quality of Life Following Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in a Tertiary Care Center in Southern India

INTRODUCTION

With the advent of multimodality therapy and minimally invasive surgical approaches, patients suffering from carcinoma esophagus are showing promising outcomes. Hence, the frontier needs to be widened to assess the postoperative quality of life (QoL) of those surviving carcinoma esophagus. The objective of the study was to determine the short-term outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) /hybrid esophagectomies in carcinoma esophagus and the organ-specific QoL in survivors of MIE for carcinoma esophagus, and to compare health-related QoL in patients following MIE for carcinoma esophagus with the general population.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A longitudinal study design was used to evaluate the short-term postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing MIE for carcinoma esophagus between July 1, 2021, to July 15, 2022, and analyze the QoL of those patients who survived at one year without tumor recurrence. QoL was assessed using the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QoL Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the EORTC QoL Questionnaire - Oesophageal Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-OES18).

RESULTS

A total of 15 patients who underwent minimal invasive/hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal carcinomawere included. Of these, 13 patients underwent hybrid esophagectomy while two patients underwent thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy. Squamous cell carcinoma was observed as the most common histological variant (60%) while 33% were adenocarcinoma and 6.7% lymphoma. The most common site of the tumor was the lower one-third esophagus (60%). Nine out of 15 patients developed postoperative complications needing prolonged ICU stay. One major anastomotic leak as well as one conduit necrosis was observed among 15 cases operated. Median length of hospital stay was 16 (IQR 12-24). QoL was assessed among 12 patients at the one-year follow-up excluding mortality cases and patients with tumor recurrence. The patients following MIE for carcinoma esophagus were observed to have low scores in physical functioning, role functioning, and social function when compared with the general population. Cognitive functioning and emotional function were not found to be significantly different. No statistically significant difference was observed in the global health status among the two groups. There was no significant difference found in the general symptoms score comparison of the MIE patients with the general population. When it comes to organ-specific symptom scales, reflux was observed as a major issue among the patients who survived carcinoma esophagus after undergoing MIE. Dysphagia and dry mouth received low scores suggestive of minor issues. Though analysis of global health QoL scores of those with postoperative complications and those who had uneventful recovery at one year revealed a higher score for the latter, it was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative complications can prolong hospital stay, delay resuming normal work, and affect the global QoL of patients compared with those who recovered uneventfully. Physical and role functions were observed to be deficient among survived patients when compared with the normal population. Nutritional prehabilitation, cutting-edge surgical practice including minimally invasive techniques, minimizing deviation from normal postoperative recovery by high-quality ICU care, and postoperative rehabilitation are the cornerstones to ensure better QoL.

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.

Milestones in the History of Esophagectomy: From Torek to Minimally Invasive Approaches

The history of esophagectomy reflects a journey of dedication, collaboration, and technical innovation, with ongoing endeavors aimed at optimizing outcomes and reducing complications. From its early attempts to modern minimally invasive approaches, the journey has been marked by perseverance and innovation. Franz J. A. Torek's 1913 successful esophageal resection marked a milestone, demonstrating the feasibility of transthoracic esophagectomy and the potential for esophageal cancer cure. However, its high mortality rate posed challenges, and it took almost two decades for similar successes to emerge. Surgical techniques evolved with the left thoracotomy, right thoracotomy, and transhiatal approaches, expanding the indications for resection. Mechanical staplers introduced in the early 20th century transformed anastomosis, reducing complications. The advent of minimally invasive techniques in the 1990s aimed to minimize complications while maintaining oncological efficacy. Robot-assisted esophagectomy further pushed the boundaries of minimally invasive surgery. Collaborative efforts, particularly from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration and the Esophageal Complications Consensus Group, standardized reporting and advanced the understanding of outcomes. The introduction of risk prediction models aids in making informed decisions. Despite significant improvements in survival rates and postoperative mortality, anastomotic leaks remain a concern, with recent rates showing an increase. Prevention strategies include microvascular anastomosis and ischemic preconditioning, yet challenges persist.

Cost analysis of robot-assisted versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer. Results of the ROBOT randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The previously published ROBOT trial demonstrated that robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is associated with a lower percentage of postoperative complications compared to open esophagectomy (OTE) for patients with esophageal cancer. The implications of these results on healthcare costs are important given the increased attention for cost-reduction in healthcare. Therefore the aim of this study was to report the hospital costs of RAMIE compared to OTE as treatment for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

The ROBOT trial randomized 112 patients with esophageal cancer between RAMIE and OTE through January 2012 and August 2016 in a single tertiary care academic centre in the Netherlands. The primary outcome of the current study was hospital costs from the day of esophagectomy until 90 days after discharge based on Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing methodology. Secondary outcomes included the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per complication prevented and risk factors for increased hospital costs.

RESULTS

Of the 112 included patients, 109 patients underwent an esophagectomy, of whom 54 RAMIE and 55 OTE. The mean total hospital costs were comparable between RAMIE €40211 and OTE €39495 (mean difference €-715; bias-corrected and accelerated confidence interval € -14831 to 14783, p = 0.932). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20.000 to €25.000 (i.e. estimated additional costs to the hospital to treat patients with a complication) RAMIE had a probability 62%-70% of being cost effective to prevent postoperative complications. In multivariable regression analysis, major postoperative complications were the main driver of hospital costs after esophagectomy (€31839, p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

In this randomized trial RAMIE resulted in fewer postoperative complications compared to OTE without increasing total hospital costs.

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.

[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.

Robotic-Assisted Esophagectomy: Current Situation and Future Perspectives

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been rapidly spreading worldwide as a novel minimally invasive approach for esophageal cancer. This narrative review aimed to elucidate the current situation and future perspectives of RAMIE for esophageal cancer. References were searched using PubMed and Embase for studies published up to 8 April 2023. Search terms included "esophagectomy" or "esophageal cancer" and "robot" or "robotic" or "robotic-assisted." There are several different uses for the robot in esophagectomy. Overall complications are equivalent or may be less in RAMIE than in open esophagectomy and conventional (thoracoscopic) minimally invasive esophagectomy. Several meta-analyses demonstrated the possibility of RAMIE in reducing pulmonary complications, although the equivalent incidence was observed in two randomized controlled trials. RAMIE may increase the number of dissected lymph nodes, especially in the left recurrent laryngeal nerve area. Long-term outcomes are comparable between the procedures, although further research is required. Further progress in robotic technology combined with artificial intelligence is expected.

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.

Current status and future perspectives for the treatment of resectable locally advanced esophagogastric junction cancer: A narrative review

Incidence rates for esophagogastric junction cancer are rising rapidly worldwide possibly due to the economic development and demographic changes. Therefore, increased attention has been paid to the prevention, diagnosis, and the treatment of esophagogastric junction cancer. Although there are discrepancies in the treatment strategy between Asian and Western countries, surgery remains the mainstay of treatment for esophagogastric junction cancer. Recent developments of perioperative multidisciplinary treatment may lead to better therapeutic effect, higher complete resection rate, and better control of the residual diseases, thus result in prolonged prognosis. In this review, we will focus on the treatment of locally advanced resectable esophagogastric junction cancer, and discuss the current status and future perspectives of the perioperative treatment including chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and immunotherapy, as well as the surgical strategy. Better understanding of the latest treatment strategy and future overlook may enable to standardize and individualize the treatment for esophagogastric junction cancer, thus leading to better prognosis for those patients.

Introducing robotic oesophagectomy into an Australian practice: an assessment of the early procedural outcomes and learning curve

BACKGROUND

Robotic oesophagectomy (RAMIO) is a novel procedure in Australia and New Zealand. We aimed to report the early operative and clinical outcomes achieved during the introduction of RAMIO into the practice of a single Australian surgeon and benchmark these against outcomes of patients receiving conventional minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) by the same surgeon.

METHODS

Data on all patients undergoing RAMIO, performed by a single high-volume Australian surgeon, were collected from a prospectively maintained database. Operative, clinical and surgical quality outcomes were benchmarked on a univariable basis against those of patients receiving MIO. Learning curves were computed using quadratic and linear regression of operating times on case-numbers and compared using Cox regression modelling.

RESULTS

290 patients (237 MIO, 53 RAMIO (47% Ivor-Lewis, 53% McKeon oesophagectomy)) were included. Compared with MIO, the median thoracic operating time was 20 min longer for RAMIO (P = 0.03). Following RAMIO, there was less blood loss (P < 0.01) and a shorter length of stay (P < 0.01).There were no differences in morbidity and quality of surgery following RAMIO compared with MIO. There were no deaths following RAMIO. Having progressed from MIO, the operating times for RAMIO improved after 22 cases compared with MIO (110 cases) (HR 0.70 (0.51-0.93), P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

With careful implementation, RAMIO may be safely performed within the Australian setting and is associated with a modest increase in procedure duration, but less blood loss and shorter length of stay compared with conventional MIO.

Robotic versus open Ivor–Lewis esophagectomy: A more accurate lymph node dissection without burdening the leak rate

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) combines the beneficial effects of minimally invasive surgery on postoperative complications, especially on pulmonary ones, with the safety of the anastomosis performed in open surgery. Moreover, RAMIE could allow a more accurate lymphadenectomy.

METHODS

We reviewed our database to identify all patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus treated by Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in the period January 2014 to June 2022. Patients were divided according to the thoracic approach into RAMIE and open esophagectomy (OE) groups. We compared the groups for early surgical outcomes, 90-day mortality as well as R0 rate, and the number of lymph nodes harvested.

RESULTS

We identified 47 patients in RAMIE and 159 patients in the OE group. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Operative time was significantly longer for RAMIE procedures (p < 0.01); however, we did not observe the difference in overall (RAMIE 55.5% vs. OE 61%, p = 0.76) and severe complications rate (RAMIE 17% vs. OE 22.6%, p = 0.4). The anastomotic leak rate was 2.1% after RAMIE and 6.9% after OE (p = 0.56). We did not report the difference in 90-day mortality (RAMIE 2.1% vs. OE 1.9%, p = 0.65). In the RAMIE group, we observed a significantly higher number of thoracic lymph nodes harvested, with a median of 10 lymph nodes in the RAMIE group versus 8 in the OE group (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, RAMIE has morbimortality rates comparable to OE. Moreover, it allows a more accurate thoracic lymphadenectomy which results in a higher thoracic lymph nodes retrieval rate.

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.

Trends in surgical techniques for the treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer: the 2022 update

The aim of this study was to evaluate the current practice in surgical techniques for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer surgery worldwide and to compare the results to the previous surveys in 2007 and 2014. An online survey was sent out among surgical members of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus, the World Organization for Specialized Studies on Disease of the Esophagus, the International Gastric Cancer Association, the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery of Great Britain and Ireland and Dutch gastroesophageal surgeons via the network of the investigators. In total, 260 surgeons completed the survey representing 52 countries and 6 continents; Europe 56%, Oceania 14%, Asia 14%, South-America 9%, North-America 7%. Of the responding surgeons, 39% worked in a hospital that performed >51 esophagectomies per year. Total minimally invasive esophagectomy was the preferred technique (53%) followed by hybrid esophagectomy (26%) of which 7% consisted of a minimally invasive thoracic phase and 19% of a minimally invasive abdominal phase. Total open esophagectomy was preferred by 21% of the respondents. Total minimally invasive esophagectomy was significantly more often performed in high-volume centers compared with non-high-volume centers (P = 0.002). Robotic assistance was used in 13% during the thoracic phase and 6% during the abdominal phase. Minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy has become the preferred approach for esophagectomy. Although 21% of the surgeons prefer an open approach, 26% of the surgeons perform a hybrid procedure which may reflect further transition towards the use of total minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Robotic versus thoraco-laparoscopic minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, a matched-pair single-center cohort analysis

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is becoming more widespread with a documented improvement in postoperative morbidity based on level I evidence. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal MIE approach, conventional thoracoscopy/laparoscopy vs robotics as well as the ideal anastomotic technique. All patients who underwent MIE via an Ivor Lewis approach with a side-to-side stapled anastomosis were included. The thoracoscopy-laparoscopy (TL) group was compared to the robotic group with respect to perioperative outcomes using the entire cohorts and after 1:1 propensity score matching. Comparisons were made using the Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact tests. Between July 2013 and November 2020, 72 TL and 67 robotic Ivor Lewis MIE were performed. After comparing the two unadjusted cohorts and 51 propensity matched pairs, there was a decrease in Clavien-Dindo Grade 2 or above complications in the robotic vs TL group (59.7% vs 41.8% [P = 0.042], (62.7% vs 39.2% [P = 0.029]), respectively. In both analyses, there was a reduction in hospital length of stay (median of 8 vs 7 days, P < 0.001) and a trend toward less anastomotic leaks in the robotic group (Unadjusted: 12.5 vs 3% [P = 0.057], Propensity-matched analysis: 13.7% vs 3.9% [P = 0.16]), respectively. A clinically significant decrease in overall morbidity, cardiac complications and hospital length of stay was observed in the robotic Ivor Lewis cohort when compared with the TL group at a high volume MIE program. Side-to-side stapled thoracic anastomoses utilizing a robotic platform provides the best outcomes in this single institution experience.

The Implementation of Minimally Invasive Surgery in the Treatment of Esophageal Cancer: A Step Toward Better Outcomes?

Esophagectomy is considered the cornerstone of the radical treatment of esophageal cancer. In the past decades, minimally invasive techniques including robot-assisted approaches have become popular. The aim of minimally invasive surgery is to reduce the surgical trauma, resulting in faster recovery, reduction in complications, and better quality of life after surgery. Secondly, a more precise dissection may lead to better oncological outcomes. As such, minimally invasive esophagectomy is now seen by many as the standard surgical approach. However, evidence supporting this viewpoint is limited. This narrative review summarizes recent prospectively designed studies on minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Robot-assisted Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy (RAILE): A review of surgical techniques and clinical outcomes

In the past 20 years, robotic system has gradually found a place in esophagectomy which is a demanding procedure in the deep and narrow thoracic cavity containing crucial functional structures. Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (ILE) is a mainstream surgery type for esophagectomy and is widely accepted for its capability in lymphadenectomy and relatively mitigated trauma. As a minimally invasive technique, robot-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (RAILE) has been frequently compared with the video-assisted procedure and the traditional open procedure. However, high-quality evidence elucidating the advantages and drawbacks of RAILE is still lacking. In this article, we will review the surgical techniques, both short and long-term outcomes, the learning curve, and explicate the current progress and clinical efficacy of RAILE.

Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS)/Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI) consensus statement on intraoperative and postoperative interventions to reduce pulmonary complications after oesophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary complications are the most common morbidity after oesophagectomy, contributing to mortality and prolonged postoperative recovery, and have a negative impact on health-related quality of life. A variety of single or bundled interventions in the perioperative setting have been developed to reduce the incidence of pulmonary complications. Significant variation in practice exists across the UK. The aim of this modified Delphi consensus was to deliver clear evidence-based consensus recommendations regarding intraoperative and postoperative care that may reduce pulmonary complications after oesophagectomy.

METHODS

With input from a multidisciplinary group of 23 experts in the perioperative management of patients undergoing surgery for oesophageal cancer, a modified Delphi method was employed. Following an initial systematic review of relevant literature, a range of anaesthetic, surgical, and postoperative care interventions were identified. These were then discussed during a two-part virtual conference. Recommendation statements were drafted, refined, and agreed by all attendees. The level of evidence supporting each statement was considered.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on 12 statements on topics including operative approach, pyloric drainage strategies, intraoperative fluid and ventilation strategies, perioperative analgesia, postoperative feeding plans, and physiotherapy interventions. Seven additional questions concerning the perioperative management of patients undergoing oesophagectomy were highlighted to guide future research.

CONCLUSION

Clear consensus recommendations regarding intraoperative and postoperative interventions that may reduce pulmonary complications after oesophagectomy are presented.

Robot-assisted esophagectomy may improve perioperative outcome in patients with esophageal cancer – a single-center experience

Background

Although the introduction of minimally invasive surgical techniques has improved surgical outcomes in recent decades, esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is still associated with severe complications and a high mortality rate. Robot-assisted surgery is already established in certain fields and robot-assisted esophagectomy may be a possible alternative to the standard minimally invasive esophagectomy. The goal of this study was to investigate whether robot assistance in esophagectomy can improve patient outcome while maintaining good oncological control.

Material and methods

Data of all patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy between January 2018 and November 2021 at University Hospital Mannheim was collected retrospectively. Patients were divided into two cohorts according to operative technique (standard minimally invasive (MIE) vs. robot-assisted esophagectomy (RAMIE), and their outcomes compared. In a separate analysis, patients were propensity score matched according to age, gender and histological diagnosis, leading to 20 matching pairs.

Results

95 patients were included in this study. Of those, 71 patients underwent robot-assisted esophagectomy and 24 patients underwent standard minimally invasive esophagectomy. Robot-assisted esophagectomy showed a lower incidence of general postoperative complications (52.1% vs. 79.2%, p=0.0198), surgical complications (42.3% vs. 75.0%, p=0.0055), a lower rate of anastomotic leakage (21.1% vs. 50.0%, p=0.0067), a lower Comprehensive Complication Index (median of 20.9 vs. 38.6, p=0.0065) as well as a shorter duration of hospital stay (median of 15 vs. 26 days, p=0.0012) and stay in the intensive care unit (median of 4 vs. 7 days, p=0.028) than standard minimally invasive surgery. After additionally matching RAMIE and MIE patients according to age, gender and diagnosis, we found significant improvement in the RAMIE group compared to the MIE group regarding the Comprehensive Complication Index (median of 20.9 vs. 38.6, p=0.0276), anastomotic leakage (20% vs. 55%, p=0.0484) and severe toxicity during neoadjuvant treatment (0 patients vs. 9 patients, p=0.005).

Conclusion

Robot-assisted surgery can significantly improve outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer. It may lead to a shorter hospital stay as well as lower rates of complications, including anastomotic leakage.

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.

Two-lung ventilation in video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy in prone position: A systematic review

Esophageal cancer surgery is still carrying a high risk of morbidity and mortality. That is why some anesthesia strategies have tried to reduce those postoperative complications. In this systematic review performed in accordance with the PRISMA-S guidelines (PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022310385)), we aimed to investigate the safety and advantages of two-lung ventilation (TLV) over one-lung ventilation (OLV) in minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in the prone position. Seven trials, with a total number of 1710 patients (765 patients with TLV versus 945 patients with OLV) were included. Postoperative mortality and morbidity rates were similar between TLV and OLV when realised for esophagectomy. Interestingly, we observed no difference in changes in intraoperative respiratory parameters, operative duration, thoraco-conversion rate, number of harvested lymph nodes, postoperative heart rate and respiratory rate between TLV and OLV. TLV brings better results in terms of intraoperative oxygen arterial pressure (PaO₂) during the thoracic time, postoperative oxygenation, PaO2 on inspired fraction of oxygen (FiO₂) ratio, duration of thoracic surgery, preoperative time, blood loss, temperature on postoperative day-1, and C-reactive protein dosage. Our study highlighted the safety of TLV for MIE in prone position when compared to OLV. Interestingly, we found better intra and postoperative ventilation parameters. The choice of ventilation modality did not influence clinical outcome after surgery and the quality of oncological resection. Large randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm these results.

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.

Automated Surgical-Phase Recognition for Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Using Artificial Intelligence

BACKGROUND

Although a number of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) procedures have been performed due to three-dimensional field of view, image stabilization, and flexible joint function, both the surgeons and surgical teams require proficiency. This study aimed to establish an artificial intelligence (AI)-based automated surgical-phase recognition system for RAMIE by analyzing robotic surgical videos.

METHODS

This study enrolled 31 patients who underwent RAMIE. The videos were annotated into the following nine surgical phases: preparation, lower mediastinal dissection, upper mediastinal dissection, azygos vein division, subcarinal lymph node dissection (LND), right recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) LND, left RLN LND, esophageal transection, and post-dissection to completion of surgery to train the AI for automated phase recognition. An additional phase ("no step") was used to indicate video sequences upon removal of the camera from the thoracic cavity. All the patients were divided into two groups, namely, early period (20 patients) and late period (11 patients), after which the relationship between the surgical-phase duration and the surgical periods was assessed.

RESULTS

Fourfold cross validation was applied to evaluate the performance of the current model. The AI had an accuracy of 84%. The preparation (p = 0.012), post-dissection to completion of surgery (p = 0.003), and "no step" (p < 0.001) phases predicted by the AI were significantly shorter in the late period than in the early period.

CONCLUSIONS

A highly accurate automated surgical-phase recognition system for RAMIE was established using deep learning. Specific phase durations were significantly associated with the surgical period at the authors' institution.

Clinical Effect and Postoperative Pain of Laparo-Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy in Patients with Esophageal Cancer

Objective

To investigate the clinical effect and postoperative pain of laparo-thoracoscopic esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer.

Methods

A total of 90 patients with esophageal cancer who were admitted and treated in our hospital from August 2020 to November 2021 were randomly selected as the research subjects for prospective analysis, and the patients were assigned to the control group and the experimental group according to the time of admission equally, with 45 cases in each group. Patients in the control group underwent conventional open surgery, and those in the experimental group underwent laparo-thoracoscopic esophagectomy. Then, operation-related indicators, postoperative pain, inflammatory factors, and complications were compared between the two groups.

Results

The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, and postoperative length of stays of the experimental group were significantly shorter or less than those of the control group (P < 0.05); there was no significant difference in the number of lymph nodes dissected between the two groups (P > 0.05). The number of patients with moderate and severe pain in the experimental group was significantly smaller than that in the control group, and the number of patients with mild pain was significantly larger than that in the control group (P < 0.05). The level of inflammatory factors (TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, and IL-10) was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05); the incidence of surgical complications in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Laparo-thoracoscopic esophagectomy can significantly improve the clinical effect in patients with esophageal cancer. Thoracic-laparoscopic esophagectomy can significantly improve the clinical results of patients with esophageal cancer. With better performance in surgery-related indicators, lower inflammatory factor levels and postoperative pain, and fewer postoperative complications, it will speed up patients' recovery and is worthy of clinical promotion and application.

Selection of minimally invasive surgical approaches for treating esophageal cancer

Minimally invasive esophagectomy has gradually been accepted as an active treatment option for surgery of esophageal cancer. However, there is no consensus about how to perform the procedures in the thoracic and abdominal phase including anastomosis in the neck (McKeown) or chest (Ivor Lewis), VATS, robotic‐assisted or reduced port approaches or various endoscopic abrasion techniques. Further studies to investigate the roles of these novel techniques are required to treat the various patient populations.

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.

A Study on Risk Factors Associated with Reflux Esophagitis in Patients Undergoing Esophageal Cancer Surgery

Objective

To investigate the risk factors associated with reflux esophagitis in patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery and to provide reference for the prevention and treatment of reflux esophagitis.

Methods

In the manner retrospective study, the data of 300 patients with esophageal cancer who received the surgical treatment in our hospital (January 2018-December 2020) were retrospectively reviewed. The 300 patients were divided into the occurrence group (n = 45) and nonoccurrence group (n = 255) depending on whether they had reflux esophagitis after surgery. The social demographic data and clinical data of the patients in the two groups were collected. These data were classified into the personal factors and surgical factors. The single-factor analysis method was adopted to analyze the effects of the personal and surgical factors on reflux esophagitis. The factors with statistically significant differences in the single-factor analysis were analyzed by logistic regression to verify the factors were the risk factors associated with reflux esophagitis in patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery.

Results

The differences in the bodyweight, body mass index (BMI), length of the resected esophagus, surgical approach, intraoperative blood loss, gastrointestinal decompression volume, and surgery time between the two groups were of statistical significance (P < 0.05). After being tested by the logistics multivariate analysis, length of the resected esophagus, whole stomach reconstruction, intraoperative blood loss, and surgery time were identified as the risk factors associated with reflux esophagitis in patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery.

Conclusion

The length of the resected esophagus, whole stomach reconstruction, intraoperative blood loss, and surgery time were the risk factors associated with reflux esophagitis in patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery. It is necessary to choose the appropriate surgical approach according to the patients' conditions in practice and to strengthen the prevention and treatment of reflux esophagitis.

Surgical Therapy of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma-Current Standards and Future Perspectives

Transthoracic esophagectomy is currently the predominant curative treatment option for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma. The majority of carcinomas present as locally advanced tumors requiring multimodal strategies with either neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy alone. Minimally invasive, including robotic, techniques are increasingly applied with a broad spectrum of technical variations existing for the oncological resection as well as gastric reconstruction. At the present, intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy is the preferred technique of reconstruction (Ivor Lewis esophagectomy). With standardized surgical procedures, a complete resection of the primary tumor can be achieved in almost 95% of patients. Even in expert centers, postoperative morbidity remains high, with an overall complication rate of 50-60%, whereas 30- and 90-day mortality are reported to be <2% and <6%, respectively. Due to the complexity of transthoracic esophagetomy and its associated morbidity, esophageal surgery is recommended to be performed in specialized centers with an appropriate caseload yet to be defined. In order to reduce postoperative morbidity, the selection of patients, preoperative rehabilitation and postoperative fast-track concepts are feasible strategies of perioperative management. Future directives aim to further centralize esophageal services, to individualize surgical treatment for high-risk patients and to implement intraoperative imaging modalities modifying the oncological extent of resection and facilitating surgical reconstruction.