Robotic-assisted McKeown esophagectomy

Risk of chyle leak after robotic versus video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

We investigate the incidence and risk factors for post-operative outcomes including chyle leak following minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).

METHODS

Patients undergoing MIE from May 2016 until August 2020 were prospectively followed. Outcomes of robotic and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) esophagectomy were analyzed.

RESULTS

347 esophagectomies were performed: 70 cases were done robotically by 2 surgeons and 277 by VATS by 14 surgeons. Patients had similar demographics, surgical technique, length of stay (LOS), and re-operation rates. Overall complication rates between robotic and VATS MIE were statistically similar (61% vs. 50%; p = 0.082). The majority of complications for either VATS (41.5%) or robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) (51.4%) were grade II. Nineteen patients developed a chyle leak. Patients with a chyle leak were similar in age, gender, and hospital LOS (all p > 0.05), but were more likely to undergo a three-hole or robotic esophagectomy (both p < 0.05) as well as have higher rehabilitation requirements on discharge (26% vs. 10%; p = 0.05). Among the two surgeons who each performed > 20 robotic esophagectomies (n = 70), nine chyle leaks occurred. Rates varied by surgeon (7 vs. 2; p = 0.003). Lower leak rates occurred in the surgeon with more robotic esophagectomy experience (n = 47 vs. 23). Patients were similar in age, and gender (p > 0.05), but those with a chyle leak were more likely to undergo three-hole esophagectomies, prophylactic thoracic duction ligations, undergo the abdominal portion via laparotomy, and not have a prophylactic omental flap (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Robotic and VATS esophagectomy have similar rates of re-operation, length of stay, discharge needs and complications. Differences in outcomes between VATS and Robotic esophagectomy appears to be related to surgeon experience with the robot but may also be associated with techniques such as anastomotic height, omental flap utilization and performance of laparoscopy.

Trans-thoracic versus trans-hiatal resection for oesophageal carcinoma: a retrospective comparative study of a single-centre case series

Background

Oesophageal carcinoma (EC) is the eighth most common cancer. Surgery is the cornerstone of management for resectable EC. Trans-thoracic oesophagectomy (TTE) and trans-hiatal oesophagectomy (THE) are the two most widely practised procedures. Most of the related controversies are centred on both early and late post-operative complications and mortality (in terms of overall survival and cancer-free survival).This was a single-centre, retrospective, comparative study analysing the outcomes of two EC resection methods. All 87 patients underwent surgery by the same surgical team over 13 years. Consequently, 87 oesophagectomies with curative intent were performed and divided into the TTE group (group A = 47) and the THE group (group B = 40).

Results

The mean patient age was 65.60 ± 6.30 years in the TTE group and 63.48 ± 9.34 years in the THE group. No significant difference was found in operative time, blood loss or duration of stay in the intensive care unit. The duration of hospital stay was significantly different between the THE and TTE groups (17.25 ± 5.92 vs. 12.93 ± 3.44, respectively; P ≤ 0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher in the TTE group (9/47, 19.14%) than in the THE group (5/40, 12.5%) (P = 0.400). The mean survival rate from our series showed the superiority of group A (TTE) (65.56 months) over group B (THE) (45.01 months), with P = 0.146.

Conclusion

No high level of evidence suggests the superiority of one surgical procedure over another. The THE procedure is less time-consuming concerning care and follow-up, and most patients were more satisfied and experienced less pain than with the TTE procedure. Both THE and TTE have comparable post-operative anastomotic complications, and they have no significant long-term survival differences.