Robotic-assisted Esophagectomy vs Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy (REVATE): study protocol for a randomized controlled 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).

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.

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.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus thoracoscopic approach: multi-institutional study on short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy and conventional minimally invasive oesophagectomy are superior to open techniques. However, few studies have directly compared the outcomes of the two minimally invasive approaches.

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients from six medical centres with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent minimally invasive oesophagectomy between 2015 and 2022. Perioperative outcomes were compared after applying inverse probability of treatment weighting.

RESULTS

The study included 577 patients (robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy: 206; conventional minimally invasive oesophagectomy: 371). After applying inverse probability of treatment weighting, robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy was found to yield a higher number of mediastinal nodes compared with conventional minimally invasive oesophagectomy (14.86 versus 12.66, P = 0.017). Robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy was notably effective in retrieving upper mediastinal left recurrent laryngeal nerve nodes, averaging 1.97 nodes versus 1.14 nodes harvested by conventional minimally invasive oesophagectomy (P < 0.001). This was coupled by a significant decrease in nerve palsy rates (13.9% versus 22.8%, P = 0.020). A significantly larger percentage of patients in the robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy group had an uncomplicated postoperative course (51.8% versus 34%, P < 0.001). Robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy also led to a reduction in pneumonia rates (8.6% versus 15.2%, P = 0.041) and was linked to a shorter length of stay (length of stay; 16.64 versus 21.14 days, P = 0.007). The advantage of robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy in reducing the length of stay was especially pronounced in patients with a high Charlson co-morbidity index (≥2, mean difference 8.46 days; P = 0.0069) and those who underwent neoadjuvant therapy (mean difference 5.63 days; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma, the use of robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy led to fewer cases of pneumonia and faster recovery compared with conventional minimally invasive oesophagectomy. Additionally, robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy significantly improved the feasibility and safety of performing lymph node dissection along the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

Multicentre randomized clinical trial on robot-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic oesophagectomy (REVATE trial)

BACKGROUND

Surgery for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma involves dissecting lymph nodes along the recurrent laryngeal nerve. This is technically challenging and injury to the recurrent laryngeal nerve may lead to vocal cord palsy, which increases the risk of pulmonary complications. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted oesophagectomy (RAO) versus video-assisted thoracoscopic oesophagectomy (VAO) for dissection of lymph nodes along the left RLN.

METHODS

Patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma who were scheduled for minimally invasive McKeown oesophagectomy were allocated randomly to RAO or VAO, stratified by centre. The primary endpoint was the success rate of left recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph node dissection. Success was defined as the removal of at least one lymph node without causing nerve damage lasting longer than 6 months. Secondary endpoints were perioperative and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

From June 2018 to March 2022, 212 patients from 3 centres in Asia were randomized, and 203 were included in the analysis (RAO group 103; VAO group 100). Successful left recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph node dissection was achieved in 88.3% of the RAO group and 69% of the VAO group (P < 0.001). The rate of removal of at least one lymph node according to pathology was 94.2% for the RAO and 86% for the VAO group (P = 0.051). At 1 week after surgery, the RAO group had a lower incidence of left recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy than the VAO group (20.4 versus 34%; P = 0.029); permanent recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy rates at 6 months were 5.8 and 20% respectively (P = 0.003). More mediastinal lymph nodes were dissected in the RAO group (median 16 (i.q.r. 12-22) versus 14 (10-20); P = 0.035). Postoperative complication rates were comparable between the two groups and there were no in-hospital deaths.

CONCLUSION

In patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma, RAO leads to more successful left recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph node dissection than VAO, including a lower rate of short- and long-term recurrent laryngeal nerve injury. Registration number: NCT03713749 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

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.

The death of laparoscopy

BACKGROUND

The introduction of laparoscopy in 1989 revolutionized surgical practices, reducing post-operative complications, and enhancing outcomes. Despite its benefits, limitations in laparoscopic tools have led to continued use of open surgery. Robotic-assisted surgery emerged to address these limitations, but its adoption trends and potential impact on open and laparoscopic surgery require analysis.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) databases from 2012 to 2021. The study encompassed various abdominal procedures, employing Vector Autoregressive (VAR) models to analyze the dynamic relationships between surgical techniques. The models predicted future trends in open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery until Q2 of 2025.

RESULTS

The analysis included 360,171 patients across diverse procedures. In urology, robotic surgery dominated prostatectomies (83.1% in 2021) and nephrectomies (55.1% in 2021), while the open approach remained the predominant surgical technique for cystectomies (72.5% in 2021). In general surgery, robotic colectomies were forecasted to surpass laparoscopy, becoming the primary approach by 2024 (45.7% in 2025). Proctectomies also showed a shift towards robotic surgery, predicted to surpass laparoscopy and open surgery by 2025 (32.3%). Pancreatectomies witnessed a steady growth in robotic surgery, surpassing laparoscopy in 2021, with forecasts indicating further increase. While hepatectomies remained predominantly open (70.0% in 2025), esophagectomies saw a rise in robotic surgery, predicted to become the primary approach by 2025 (52.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

The study suggests a transformative shift towards robotic-assisted surgery, poised to dominate various minimally invasive procedures. The forecasts indicate that robotic surgery may surpass laparoscopy and open surgery in colectomies, proctectomies, pancreatectomies, and esophagectomies by 2025. This anticipated change emphasizes the need for proactive adjustments in surgical training programs to align with evolving surgical practices. The findings have substantial implications for future healthcare practices, necessitating a balance between traditional laparoscopy and the burgeoning role of robotic-assisted surgery.

Prognostic Factors for Recovery from Left Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Palsy After Minimally Invasive McKeown Esophagectomy: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) palsy is a serious complication of esophagectomy that affects the patient's phonation and the ability to prevent life-threatening aspiration events. The aim of this single-center, retrospective study was to investigate the clinical course of left RLN palsy and to identify the main prognostic factors for recovery.

METHODS

The study cohort consisted of 85 patients who had developed left RLN palsy after minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy. Vocal cord function was assessed in all participants through laryngoscopic examinations, both in the immediate postoperative period and during follow-up. Permanent palsy was defined as no evidence of recovery after 6 months. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were applied to evaluate the associations between different variables and the outcome of palsy.

RESULTS

Twenty-two (25.8%) patients successfully recovered from left RLN palsy. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, active smoking (odds ratio [OR] 0.335, p = 0.038) and the use of thoracoscopic surgery (vs. robotic surgery; OR 0.264, p = 0.028) were identified as independent unfavorable predictors for recovery from palsy. The estimated rates of recovery derived from a logistic regression model for patients harboring two, one, or no risk factors were 13.16%, 31.15-34.75%, and 61.39%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Only one-quarter of patients who had developed left RLN palsy after minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy were able to fully recover. Smoking habits and the surgical approach were identified as key determinants of recovery. Patients harboring adverse prognostic factors are potential candidates for early intervention strategies.

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.

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.

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.

Short-term and long-term effects of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury after robotic esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) was reported to have superiority in upper mediastinal lymph nodes dissection than traditional approach, but related injuries to recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLNI) cannot be avoided. Considering that there is no study centering on RLNI during robotic manipulation, this study aimed to investigate the impact of RLNI on the short-term and long-term outcomes after RAMIE.

METHODS

Patients with esophageal cancer (EC) who underwent RAMIE from June 2015 to July 2019 were collated from a prospectively maintained database. Short-term and long-term outcomes of RLNI were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 409 patients were included with the incidence of RLNI being 18.6% (76/409). A higher rate of postoperative pulmonary complications including pneumonia (P < 0.001) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (P = 0.041) was associated with RLNI, requiring more interventions for bronchoscopy airway suction (P < 0.001), tracheal reintubation (P = 0.013) and tracheostomy (P < 0.001). Patients with RLNI had a prolonged length of hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) stay (P < 0.001). With the median follow-up time of 48.7 (interquartile range [IQR]:27.6-60.9) months, recurrence in regional lymph nodes at mediastinum did not differ between groups (P = 0.351). Similarly, the Kaplan-Meier curves revealed no significant divergency for overall survival after RLNI (P = 0.452).

CONCLUSIONS

RLNI after robotic esophagectomy is a serious morbidity associated with an increased rate of pulmonary complications, prolonged length of hospitalization with limited influence on long-term prognosis.

Minimally invasive thoracic surgery: robot-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery

Minimally invasive techniques have been widely applied in general thoracic surgery. Compared with video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), due to its theoretic superiority, robotic surgery is challenging the traditional position of VATS. With its unique advantages, including 3D vision and a high-freedom endowrist, it leads to easier lymph node dissection, more convenient blood vessel dissection, a shorter learning curve and competence for the completion of complex surgery. However, as a new surgical technology, the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) still need to be further verified. Thus, in this article, we review and summarize the application of RATS versus VATS in general thoracic surgery.

Robotic-Assisted Esophagectomy: Current Situation and Future Perspectives

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

Robotic Esophagectomy Trends and Early Surgical Outcomes: The US Experience

BACKGROUND

Recent esophagectomy trends were evaluated to describe the shift in surgical approach and outcomes using The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database.

METHODS

All patients who underwent an esophagectomy with gastric conduit from 2015 to 2019 were identified and analyzed according to original intended approach. After performing volume trend analysis of patients, operative outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 10,607 patients, esophagectomy was open in 5763 (54.3%), minimally invasive (MIE) in 3524 (33.2%), and robotic (RAMIE) in 1320 (12.4%). Within 5 years, MIE and RAMIE combined rose to majority approach (open from 58% to 42% of annual volume). While MIE and RAMIE were associated with higher rates of anastomotic leak, loss of conduit, pulmonary embolus, and reoperation, R0 resection and harvested number of lymph nodes exceeded those in open approaches. Operative mortality did not differ by approach (3.21% open vs 2.72% MIE vs 2.50% RAMIE; P = .2329). On multivariable analysis, RAMIE was independently associated with higher rate of anastomotic leak compared to open (adjusted odds ratio 1.53, 95% CI 1.14-2.04), while both MIE and RAMIE had lower mean length of stay. Propensity matching of 1320 pairs found a higher risk of anastomotic leak requiring surgery for RAMIE compared with MIE (adjusted odds ratio 1.39, 95% CI 1.01-1.92).

CONCLUSIONS

In less than a decade, the dominant surgical approach in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database has become minimally invasive (RAMIE and MIE). While anastomotic leak and reoperation, more common in RAMIE, require a technical solution, these complications have not raised operative mortality. Further studies are needed to address long-term results and oncologic outcome.

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 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.

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

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

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.

Patterns of Recurrence After Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been proven to be a feasible surgical approach for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). This study aimed to investigate the recurrence pattern and potential risk factors after RAMIE. Consecutive patients with ESCC who received RAMIE with McKeown technique at a single Esophageal Cancer Institute from November 2015 to September 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with available data, radical resection (R0), and a minimum 2-year follow-up period were eligible for the recurrence analysis. Risk factors of recurrence were examined by logistic regression analysis. R0 resection was achieved in 95.1% of patients (310/326). Of the 298 eligible patients with a median follow-up period of 30.6 months, recurrence was recognized in 95 patients (31.9%), with 4 (1.3%) local-only, 40 (13.4%) regional-only, 44 (14.8%) hematogenous-only and 7 (2.3%) combined recurrences. Cervical lymph nodes and lungs were the most frequent sites of regional and hematogenous recurrence, respectively. The median disease-free interval until recurrence was 12.1 (range 1.7-37.6) months and 83.2% of relapses occurred within 2 years after surgery. Multivariable analysis indicated that tumor in the upper esophagus, larger tumor length and positive lymph nodes as independent risk factors for recurrence. Hematogenous recurrence is the prevailing pattern after RAMIE for ESCC. For patients with advanced disease, neoadjuvant therapy is a key factor in reducing recurrence rather than surgical approaches.

Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy with extended lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer compared with video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: A single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The safety and feasibility of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) remain unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of RAMIE with extended lymphadenectomy and conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in order to investigate the safety and feasibility of RAMIE.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 87 patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy at our institution between April 2018 and March 2020 was made, assigning 22 in the RAMIE group and 65 in the MIE group. Short-term clinical outcomes and clinical baseline data were compared.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics were comparable. No significant difference in median thoracic phase blood loss and median number of dissected mediastinal lymph nodes were observed. The median operative time of thoracic approach was significantly longer in the RAMIE group than the MIE group (305 minutes [221-397] vs 227 minutes [133-365], P < .0001). With respect to postoperative complications such as recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade II) (RAMIE 4.6% vs MIE 17%, P = .11) and postoperative pneumonia (Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade III) (RAMIE 9% vs MIE 23%, P = .13), no significant difference was observed. The patients in the RAMIE group had a better postoperative swallowing function (P = .023) and were able to start oral food intake significantly earlier (P = .007). The median hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RAMIE group than in the MIE (23 days vs 35 days, P = .009).

CONCLUSIONS

RAMIE with extended lymphadenectomy was safe and feasible for esophageal cancer and resulted in improved postoperative swallowing function and shorter postoperative hospital stay.

Advanced Robotic Surgery: Liver, Pancreas, and Esophagus - The State of the Art?

Background

The trend in performing robotic-assisted operations in visceral surgery has been increasing in the last decade, also reaching the challenging field of hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal surgery. Nevertheless, solid data about advantages and disadvantages of the robotic approach are still missing. The aim of this review is to analyze the benefit and impact of robotic surgery in the field of hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal surgery, focusing on the comparison with the conventional laparoscopic or open approach.

Summary

The well-known advantages of laparoscopic surgery in comparison to the open approach are also valid for robotic surgery, with the addition of a 3D-view camera, wristed instrumentation, and an ergonomic console. On the other hand, the use of a robotic system leads to longer operating time and higher costs. Randomized controlled trials comparing the robotic approach with the laparoscopic one are still missing.

Key Message

Recent meta-analyses show promising results of the usage of robotic systems in advanced surgical procedures, like hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal resections. Further randomized studies are needed to validate the postulated benefit.

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

Minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer decreases overall complication rate and leads to faster postoperative recovery. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy is becoming more common. Its three-dimensional view and wristed instruments may provide advantages over traditional thoraco-laparoscopic techniques. There are limited studies comparing robotic and conventional thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy. This study aimed to evaluate short-term outcomes of robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy (RAME) and video-assisted McKeown esophagectomy (VAME). All consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for middle and distal third esophageal cancer between January 2016 and December 2018 at our center were included in this study. Data on baseline characteristics, pathological data and short-term outcomes were collected in a dedicated database. Postoperative complications were defined as per recommendations of Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group. Histopathologic assessment was performed as per College of American Pathologists guidelines. Propensity score matching was performed for comparison between RAME and VAME groups using age, gender, performance status, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, body mass index, Charlson Index, tumor location, clinical tumor stage, and neoadjuvant treatment as covariates. A total of 74 patients were included, 25 of whom underwent RAME and 49 underwent VAME. Propensity score matching on 1:1 basis produced 25 pairs of patients, comparable in terms of baseline characteristics. Total operative time and estimated blood loss was similar between the two groups. Length of hospital stay was significantly lower in RAME group. Major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3A) were more common in VAME group, but not statistically significant. Median number of harvested lymph nodes and R0 resection rate did not differ in between the two groups. In our experience, robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy was comparable to video-assisted McKeown esophagectomy in terms of safety, feasibility and oncologic adequacy. Use of the robot was associated with reduced hospital stay. Further randomized controlled studies with larger patient samples are needed to compare the two.

Current status of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: what is the real benefit?

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal cancer has been performed increasingly frequently over the last few years. Robotic systems with articulated devices and tremor filtration allow surgeons to perform such procedures more meticulously than by hand. The feasibility of RAMIE has been demonstrated in several retrospective comparative studies, which showed similar short-term outcomes to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (cMIE). Considering the number of harvested lymph nodes, RAMIE may be superior to cMIE in terms of left upper mediastinal lymph node dissection. However, whether or not the addition of a robotic system to cMIE can help improve perioperative and oncological outcomes remains unclear. Given the lack of established evidence from randomized controlled trials, we must await the results of ongoing studies to reach any meaningful conclusions. Further advancements in robotic platforms, as well as the reduction in medical expenses, will be essential to demonstrate the real benefit of RAMIE.

The Value of Paratracheal Lymphadenectomy in Esophagectomy for Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus or Gastroesophageal Junction: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background

The role of upper mediastinal lymphadenectomy for distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinomas remains a matter of debate. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of evidence on the incidence of nodal metastases in the upper mediastinum following transthoracic esophagectomy for distal esophageal or GEJ adenocarcinoma.

Methods

A literature search was performed using Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases up to November 2020 to include studies on patients who underwent transthoracic esophagectomy with upper mediastinal lymphadenectomy for distal esophageal and/or GEJ adenocarcinoma. The primary endpoint was the incidence of metastatic nodes in the upper mediastinum based on pathological examination. Secondary endpoints were the definition of upper mediastinal lymphadenectomy, recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) palsy rate and survival.

Results

A total of 17 studies were included and the sample sizes ranged from 10-634 patients. Overall, the median incidence of upper mediastinal lymph node metastases was 10.0% (IQR 4.7-16.7). The incidences of upper mediastinal lymph node metastases were 8.3% in the 7 studies that included patients undergoing primary resection (IQR 2.0-16.6), 4,4% in the 1 study that provided neoadjuvant therapy to the full cohort, and 10.6% in the 9 studies that included patients undergoing esophagectomy either with or without neoadjuvant therapy (IQR 8.9-15.8%). Data on survival and RLN palsy rates were scarce and inconclusive.

Conclusions

The incidence of upper mediastinal lymph node metastases in distal esophageal adenocarcinoma is up to 10%. Morbidity should be weighed against potential impact on survival.

Robot-assisted and conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy are associated with better postoperative results compared to hybrid and open transthoracic esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Currently 4 surgical techniques are performed for transthoracic esophagectomy (open esophagectomy (OE), hybrid esophagectomy (HE), conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). Aim of this study was to compare these 4 different esophagectomy approaches regarding postoperative complications and short term oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

Between 2008 and 2019, consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction were included in this single center study. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Overall 422 patients (OE (n = 107), HE (n = 101), MIE (n = 91) and RAMIE (n = 123)) were evaluated. Uncomplicated postoperative course was observed in 27% (OE), 34% (HE), 53% (MIE), and 63% (RAMIE) of patients (p < 0.001). Pulmonary complications were observed in 57% (OE), 44% (HE), 28% (MIE), and 21% (RAMIE) of patients (p < 0.001). Cardiac complications were present in 25% (OE), 23% (HE), 9% (MIE), and 11% (RAMIE) of patients (p < 0.001). MIE and RAMIE were associated with fewer wound infections (p < 0.001). Median hospital stay after MIE (13 days) and RAMIE (12 days) was shorter compared to OE (20 days) and HE (17 days) (p < 0.001). A median number of 21 (OE), 23 (HE), 23 (MIE), and 31 (RAMIE) lymph nodes was harvested (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Total minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE, RAMIE) was associated with a lower overall, pulmonary, cardiac and wound complication rate as well as a shorter hospital stay compared to open or hybrid approach (OE, HE). RAMIE resulted in higher lymph node harvest than MIE.

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

BACKGROUND

For patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction, radical esophagectomy with 2-field lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of the multimodality treatment with curative intent. Both conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) were shown to be superior compared to open transthoracic esophagectomy considering postoperative complications. However, no randomized comparison exists between MIE and RAMIE in the Western World for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

This is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven multicenter randomized controlled parallel-group superiority trial. All adult patients (age ≥ 18 and ≤ 90 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3, M0) esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction and with European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 will be assessed for eligibility and included after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 218) with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction are randomized to either RAMIE (n = 109) or MIE (n = 109). The primary outcome of this study is the total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes specified per lymph node station.

CONCLUSION

This is the first randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAMIE to MIE as surgical treatment for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction in the Western World. The hypothesis of the proposed study is that RAMIE will result in a higher abdominal and mediastinal lymph node yield specified per station compared to conventional MIE. Short-term results and the primary endpoint (total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes per lymph node station) will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient within this trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04306458 . Registered 13th March 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04306458; Date of first enrolment 18.01.2021; Target sample size 218; Recruitment status: Recruiting; Protocol version 2; Issue date 10.03.2020; Rev. 02.02.2021; Authors ET, PCvdS, PPG.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT03094351.

Robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, a review of the technique

Esophageal resection is a key component of the multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy is gaining widespread approval amongst few centers with promising early data. There is significant variability in the operative approach utilized by different centers and this review describes, step-by-step, the operative technique at a high-volume tertiary center. The cornerstone of management is individualized surgical approach, based on patient, tumor and technical factors. Although our approach is based on aforementioned factors, our preferred approach is an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and this review focuses on that. The procedure is broken down into three key parts, starting with an abdominal exploration and creation of the gastric conduit, placement of jejunostomy tube, moving to thoracic mobilization and creation of the side-side 6 cm stapled esophagogastric anastomosis with a final abdominal portion to assure proper positioning of the conduit and reducing redundancy. This approach is fully robotic and a side to side anastomosis facilitates the creation of a widely patent anastomosis therefore minimizing the risk of anastomotic leaks and strictures. Our experience with minimally invasive esophagectomy, as has been previously published, is associated with a 5.1% of anastomotic leak and 7.6% of anastomotic stricture. The robotic platform further optimizes this technique and helps us safely accomplish a side to side stapled anastomosis. Superior instrument dexterity in a restricted thoracic space is facilitated by intracorporeal suturing and robotic stapling. Thus, it obviates the need for a larger thoracotomy incision, which is typically needed for an EEA anastomosis, and that is traditionally associated with higher stricture rate.

Comparison of short-term clinical outcomes between robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy and video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Though robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is demonstrated to offer a better visualization and provide a fine dissection of the mediastinal structures to facilitate the complex thoracoscopic operation, the superiorities of RAMIE over MIE have not been well verified. The aim of this study was to explore the actual superiorities through comparing short-term results of RAMIE with that of MIE.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE and web of science databases were systematically searched up to September 1, 2020 for case-controlled studies that compared RAMIE with TLMIE.

Results

Fourteen studies were identified, with a total of 2,887 patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer, including 1,435 patients subjected to RAMIE group and 1,452 patients subjected to MIE group. The operative time in RAMIE was still significantly longer than that in MIE group (OR =0.785; 95% CI, 0.618-0.952; P<0.001). The incidence of pneumonia was significantly lower in RAMIE group compared with MIE group (OR =0.677; 95% CI, 0.468-0.979; P=0.038).

Conclusions

RAMIE has the superiorities over MIE in short-term outcomes in terms of pneumonia and vocal cord palsy. Therefore, RAMIE could be considered as a standard treatment for patients with esophageal cancer.

[Evidence in minimally invasive oncological surgery of the esophagus]

BACKGROUND

Thoracoabdominal esophagectomy still plays a major role in the oncological treatment for esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive procedures were developed to reduce the high rate of postoperative morbidity and mortality without negatively affecting the oncological outcome.

OBJECTIVE

What evidence supports minimally invasive oncological surgery of the esophagus? Do patients benefit from minimally invasive esophagectomy compared to an open approach? Is the reduction of surgical access trauma specifically advantageous?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Review, evaluation and critical analysis of the international literature.

RESULTS

A reduction in postoperative morbidity by decreasing surgical trauma was confirmed by three prospective randomized clinical trials, while showing at least similar oncological outcomes. Diverse retrospective analyses and meta-analyses also came to the same result.

CONCLUSION

A minimization of surgical access trauma during thoracoabdominal esophagectomy reduces postoperative morbidity compared to conventional open surgery. Recent evidence suggests that oncological outcomes are not altered depending on the surgical approach.

Robotic McKeown esophagectomy with recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph node dissection: how I do it

We describe our standardized approach to robotic esophagectomy with special emphasis on the technical aspects pertaining to bilateral recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph node dissection.

A standardized approach for the thoracic dissection in robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE)

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is increasingly being adopted as the preferred surgical treatment for esophageal cancer, as it is superior to open esophagectomy and a good alternative to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy. This paper addresses the technical details of the thoracoscopic phase of RAMIE, including the operating room set-up, patient positioning, port placement, and surgical steps.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: long-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial

Initial results of the ROBOT, which randomized between robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) and open transthoracic esophagectomy (OTE), showed significantly better short-term postoperative outcomes in favor of RAMIE. However, it is not yet clarified if RAMIE is equivalent to OTE regarding long-term outcomes. The aim of this study was to report the long-term oncological results of the ROBOT trial in terms of survival and disease-free survival. This study is a follow-up study of the ROBOT trial, which was a randomized controlled trial comparing RAMIE to OTE in 112 patients with intrathoracic esophageal cancer. Both the trial protocol and short-term results were previously published. The primary outcome of the current study was 5-year overall survival. Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival and recurrence patterns. Analysis was by intention to treat. During the recruitment period, 109 patients were included in the survival analysis (RAMIE n = 54, OTE n = 55). Majority of patients had clinical stage III or IV (RAMIE 63%, OTE 55%) and received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (80%). Median follow-up was 60 months (range 31-60). The combined 5-year overall survival rates for RAMIE and OTE were 41% (95% CI 27-55) and 40% (95% CI 26-53), respectively (log rank test P = 0.827). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 42% (95% CI 28-55) in the RAMIE group and 43% (95% CI 29-57) in the OTE group (log rank test P = 0.749). Out of 104 patients, 57 (55%) developed recurrent disease detected at a median of 10 months (range 0-56) after surgery. No statistically difference in recurrence rate nor recurrence pattern was observed between both groups. Overall survival and disease-free survival of RAMIE are comparable to OTE. These results continue to support the use of robotic surgery for esophageal cancer.

Initial introduction of robot-assisted, minimally invasive esophagectomy using the microanatomy-based concept in the upper mediastinum

Background

We have recently standardized upper mediastinal lymph node dissection (UMLND) using a microanatomy-based concept in thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position (TEPP), and introduced robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) using the same concept as in TEPP while aiming at solo surgery. The purpose of this study was to investigate the outcomes of RAMIE using the microanatomy-based concept in the initial introduction phase.

Methods

We have performed more than 500 TEPP procedures as minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). After performing about 400 cases of MIE, we established a microanatomy-based standardization of UMLND. In October 2018, we introduced RAMIE, and have performed 75 procedures in 20 months. Two groups were analyzed: a group after microanatomy-based standardization in TEPP (100 cases after completing 400 cases of TEPP) and a RAMIE group (75 cases). Finally, 51 paired cases were matched using a propensity score. Furthermore, the change in postoperative short-term outcome for RAMIE in the initial introduction phase was analyzed.

Results

Although there were no significant differences between the two groups in the number of upper mediastinal lymph nodes dissected, there was a significant decrease (P = 0.036) in intraoperative blood loss volume with RAMIE, representing a definite benefit for patients. The thoracoscopic operative time for RAMIE decreased by almost 100 min following less than 50 cases of experience, reaching the same level as that for recent TEPP, but with only one-tenth the operator experience. There were no significant differences in the total postoperative morbidity rate including the recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy rate.

Conclusion

RAMIE has been introduced safely and smoothly using the microanatomy-based concept established in TEPP.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: Meticulous surgery minimizing postoperative complications

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been reported to reduce postoperative complications especially pulmonary complications and have equivalent long-term survival outcomes as compared to open esophagectomy. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) using da Vinci surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, USA) is rapidly gaining attention because it helps surgeons to perform meticulous surgical procedures. McKeown RAMIE has been preferably performed in East Asia where squamous cell carcinoma which lies in more proximal esophagus than adenocarcinoma is a predominant histological type of esophageal cancer. On the other hand, Ivor Lewis RAMIE has been preferably performed in the Western countries where adenocarcinoma including Barrett esophageal cancer is the most frequent histology. Average rates of postoperative complications have been reported to be lower in Ivor Lewis RAMIE than those in McKeown RAMIE. Ivor Lewis RAMIE may get more attention for thoracic esophageal cancer. The studies comparing RAMIE and MIE where recurrent nerve lymphadenectomy was thoroughly performed reported that the rate of recurrent nerve injury is lower in RAMIE than in MIE. Recurrent nerve injury leads to serious complications such as aspiration pneumonia. It seems highly probable that RAMIE is beneficial in performing recurrent nerve lymphadenectomy. Surgery for esophageal cancer will probably be more centralized in hospitals with surgical robots, which enable accurate lymph node dissection with less complications, leading to improved outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer. RAMIE might occupy an important position in surgery for esophageal cancer.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy: clinical evidence and surgical techniques

Background

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

Purpose

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

Conclusion

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

Recent advances in minimally invasive esophagectomy for squamous esophageal cancer

Over the past decade there has been tremendous development in the clinical application of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for the treatment of squamous esophageal carcinoma. The major challenges in the performance of MIE include limitations in visualization and manipulation within the confined, rigid thoracic cavity; the need for adequate patient positioning and anesthetic techniques to accommodate the surgical exposure; and changes in the surgical steps for achieving radical nodal dissection, especially for the superior mediastinum. The surgical procedure for MIE is more and more standardized, and there is an increasing practice of MIE worldwide. Randomized trials and meta-analyses have confirmed the advantages of MIE over open esophagectomy, including a significantly lower rate of complications and shorter hospital stays. The recent application of robotics technologies for MIE has further enhanced the quality and safety of the surgical dissection, while intraoperative nerve monitoring has contributed to a lower rate of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. With the application of new technologies, we expect further improvement in surgical outcomes for MIE in the treatment of squamous esophageal cancer.

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.

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

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

Current status of esophageal cancer treatment

Esophageal cancer (EC) remains one of the most common and aggressive diseases worldwide. This review discusses some debates in the modern management of the disease. Endoscopic procedures for early cancer (T1a−b) are now embedded in routine care and the challenge will be to more accurately select patients for endoscopic resection with or without adjuvant therapy. Perioperative multimodal therapies are associated with improved survival compared to surgery alone for locally advanced esophageal cancer. However, there is no global consensus on the optimal regimen. Furthermore, histological subtype (adenocarcinomavs. squamous cell cancer) plays a role in the choice for treatment. New studies are underway to resolve some issues. The extent of the lymphadenectomy during esophagectomy remains controversial especially after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The ideal operation balances between limiting surgical trauma and optimizing survival. Minimally invasive esophagectomy and enhanced recovery pathways are associated with decreased morbidity and faster recovery albeit there is no consensus yet what approach should be used. Finally, immune checkpoint inhibitors present promising preliminary results in the novel treatment of advanced or metastatic EC but their widespread application in clinical practice is still awaited.