Robotic technological aids in esophageal surgery

Learning curves and procedural times in Senhance®-robotic assisted fundoplication: results from 237 consecutive patients undergoing robotic fundoplication in a single center as part of the European TRUST Robotic Surgery Registry Study

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal reflux disease requiring an operative solution is common. Minimally invasive surgery to generate an anti-reflux barrier at the distal esophagus following the principle of the "floppy Nissen" technique has become the gold standard. Advanced robotic-assisted systems may deliver more consisted outcomes.

METHODS

This registry study analyzed safety and efficacy of the Senhance® surgical system in the surgical treatment of reflux disease and procedural proficiency. Data from 237 consecutive patients operated in a single center were evaluated. Historic standard laparoscopies from the same center were analyzed to compare robotic surgery learning curve effects.

RESULTS

Using the Senhance® Surgical System, during the first 50 patients there was a significant decrease in surgery time which was maintained over the duration of study, pointing to the surgical staff's system-specific learning. After this phase, procedural times were comparable between the robotic-assisted and traditional laparoscopic surgery. The effect of learning was greater than for standard laparoscopy. For 237 patients, there were four conversions to laparoscopic surgery. Two serious adverse events were recorded, both cardiac in nature and not related to the use of the robot.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic fundoplication was swiftly implemented in a non-university hospital with 65 surgical beds. The operating time was no longer than in standard laparoscopy, the procedure was more standardized than open or laparoscopic surgery and hospitalization times may have been sustainably shortened. The autonomy at the system's digital platform (cockpit) to conduct robotic fundoplications is a big step forward in surgery.

Robotic esophagomyotomy for achalasia: technical note and review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of achalasia has undergone continuous evolution with the advancement of technology. Since the beginning of the new millennium, the employment of robotics has led to technical facilitation with the execution of the myotomy and consequently to improvement of outcomes and decrease perioperative morbidity.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We provide a detailed description of the surgical procedure and the perioperative management together with a literature search of Electronic PubMed/Medline database and Cochrane Library. English written studies on robotic assisted myotomy (case reports, reviews, single arm and comparative studies) were included.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Between 2001 and 2020, 10 case reports, 13 single arm studies, 10 comparative studies, 2 meta-analysis, 11 reviews and 2 technical notes on robotic assisted esophagomyotomy for achalasia were published.

CONCLUSIONS

As reported by the studies available in the literature and evaluated in this manuscript, robotic assisted cardiomyotomy seems not only feasible but also a safer operation compared with traditional laparoscopic Heller myotomy, due to a significant lower incidence of intraoperative esophageal perforation. Also if large and randomized controlled studies are advocated, robotic assisted esophagocardiomyotomy might be considered superior to laparoscopic Heller myotomy that, until now, is mostly considered the gold standard in the surgical treatment of achalasia.

Robotics and minimally invasive esophageal surgery

The robotic platform has permeated esophageal surgery both in the abdominal and thoracic approaches. The most widely studied entities include achalasia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hiatal hernia and esophageal cancer. A literature review of robotic surgeries for the management of the above mentioned disorders is presented. Data is limited to meta-analyses, case series, or small prospective trials in the different indications. One exception is a randomized controlled trial looking at outcomes in esophageal cancer being managed with a hybrid robotic versus open approach. Overall differences when comparing laparoscopic or thoracoscopic surgery to robotic are few. These differences are best highlighted in the achalasia and esophageal cancer literature. There are less intraoperative mucosal injuries in robotic Heller myotomy. A large meta analysis found a rate of 1% versus 24.5% mucosal injury rate favoring the robotic versus laparoscopic Heller myotomy methods. With respect to esophagectomy data, there is slightly less vocal cord paralysis in the robotic versus MIE data, with a P value of 0.044. However, length of stay, intraoperative bleeding and major morbidity are similar across the various indications. Robotic esophageal surgery is a safe alternative to laparoscopic/thoracoscopic techniques. Further large-scale randomized trials are needed to fully ascertain if it yields superior outcomes.