Continuously sutured versus linear-stapled anastomosis in 76 robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomies

Objective

We introduced robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomies (rob-E) using the da Vinci Xi in Oct. 2015. Two anastomotic techniques have been performed – continuously sutured (COSU) and linear-stapled (LIST). Aim of this study is to evaluate the two anastomotic techniques regarding perioperative outcomes in our experience.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data between Oct. 2015 and Dec. 2020 including 76 patients. 45 underwent COSU and 31 LIST. Techniques are demonstrated with video material. Minor (Clavien-Dindo < = 3a) and major (Clavien-Dindo > = 3b) morbidity, rate of anastomotic insufficiency, mortality, and duration of hospitalization were compared.

Results

Patient characteristics were as follows: median age of 69 (35-83) years in COSU and 70 (36-83) years in LIST (p = 0.575), male gender in 84.4% of COSU and 83.9% of LIST (p = 1.000), and physical status with American Society of Anesthesiologists score 3 in 62.2% of COSU and 67.7% of LIST (p = 0.771). Concerning tumor characteristics there were 91.1% adenocarcinomas in COSU and 96.8% in LIST (p = 0.642), whereas the others were squamous cell carcinomas and one neuroendocrine tumor in COSU. The tumors were stage II in 22.2% respectively 32.3% and stage III in 57.8% respectively 48.4% of COSU and LIST (p = 0.555). Comparison of minor morbidity occurring in 60.0% of COSU and 54.8% of LIST (p = 0.813), major morbidity in 8.9% respectively 16.1% (p = 0.473), incidence of anastomotic insufficiency in 8.9% of COSU and 6.5% of LIST (p = 1.000), rate of surgical reintervention necessary in 2.2% respectively 9.7% (p = 0.298) as well as mortality of 2.2% in COSU and 3.2% in LIST (p = 1.000) showed no difference. Median duration of hospitalization of 20 (13-49) days in COSU and 20 (14-62) in LIST (p = 0.423) did not differ.

Conclusion

In rob-E COSU and LIST show comparable results and a preferable technique cannot be determined yet. Our results do not support the results of previous reports (Cerfolio et al.) that demonstrated a superiority of LIST. While stapling the backside of the anastomosis in LIST impresses as an elegant way to overcome the surgical demanding part of the anastomosis, other disadvantages such as compromising perfusion of the gastric conduit may prevail and limit the benefits. Further studies with a larger cohort are planned in order to draw more decisive conclusions.

Comparison of robotic-assisted and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomies in 321 patients of a single center: A case-matched analysis

Objective

We introduced robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomies (rob-E) using the da Vinci Xi in Oct. 2015. Prior to that, esophagectomies were performed as open Ivor Lewis (open-E) procedures. Aim of this study is to evaluate the safety of rob-E in comparison to open-E procedures regarding perioperative outcomes.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data between Feb. 1999 and Dec. 2020. A case-matched analysis, matching open-E to rob-E in a 1:1 manner, was conducted. Cases were matched regarding age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, histological type of tumor, tumor location and stage.

Results

In the study period 321 patients underwent an esophagectomy. 76 received rob-E and 245 open-E. After matching the cases the comparison of preoperative patient and tumor characteristics revealed no differences between the rob-E and open-E group regarding age at time of operation with a median of 69.5 (35-83) respectively 70 (46-88) years (p = 0.900), gender with 84.2% male in both groups (p = 1.000), ASA score with 68.4% ASA 3 or 4 in both groups (p = 1.000), percentage of tumor stage III of 53.9% respectively 57.9% (p = 0.707), and rate of neoadjuvant treatment of 82.9% in rob-E and 81.6% in open-E (p = 1.000). Conversion from rob-E to open-E was never necessary. For rob-E versus open-E no difference was found regarding overall morbidity with 69.7% versus 60.5% (p = 0.307), major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo > = 3b) with 11.8% versus 14.5% (p = 0.811), incidence of anastomotic insufficiency with 7.9% versus 5.3% (p = 0.745), rate of surgical reintervention with 5.3% versus 7.9% (p = 0.745), and mortality with 2.6% versus 3.9% (p = 1.000). Postoperative details showed no difference including a similar duration of hospitalization with a median of 20 (13-62) respectively 18.5 (13-52) days (p = 0.368) and number of harvested lymph nodes with a median of 24.5 (7-59) in rob-E and 23 (2-64) in open-E (p = 0.203).

Conclusion

The introduction of rob-E in our institution was safe, as perioperative morbidity and mortality did not differ from the previously performed open-E. Overall, the incidence of major morbidity and anastomotic insufficiency in rob-E and open-E show a satisfactory rate compared to previous reports in literature. Further studies with a larger cohort of rob-E are planned in order to draw more decisive conclusions.