» Articles » PMID: 29792203

Short-term Outcomes of Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: a Propensity Score Matched Analysis

Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was shown to be effective in reducing the morbidity and was adopted increasingly. The robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) remains in the initial stage of application. This study evaluated its safety and feasibility by comparing short-term outcomes of RAMIE and video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE).

Methods: Between March 2016 and December 2017, 115 consecutive patients underwent RAMIE or VAMIE at our institute. The baseline characteristics, pathological data and short-term outcomes of these two group patients were collected and compared. RAMIE patients were propensity score matched with VAMIE patients for a more accurate comparison.

Results: Matching based on propensity scores produced 27 patients in each group. After propensity score matching (PSM), the baseline characteristics between the two groups were comparable. The operation time in RAMIE group was significantly longer than that in VAMIE group (349 and 294 min, respectively; P < 0.001). The blood loss volume in RAMIE group was less than that in VAMIE group (119 and 158 ml, respectively), but with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.062). There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to the mean number of dissected lymph nodes (20 and 19, respectively; P = 0.420), postoperative hospital stay (13.8 and 12.7 days, respectively; P = 0.548), the rate of overall complications (37.0 and 33.3%, respectively; P = 0.776) and the rates of detailed complications between the two groups.

Conclusions: The short-term outcomes of RAMIE is comparable to VAMIE, demonstrating safety and feasibility of RAMIE.

Citing Articles

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

Budeyri I, El-Sourani N, Eichelmann A, Merten J, Juratli M, Pascher A Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(20).

PMID: 39456633 PMC: 11505766. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16203538.


Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18,187 patients.

Perry R, Barbosa J, Perry I, Barbosa J J Robot Surg. 2024; 18(1):125.

PMID: 38492067 PMC: 10944433. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-01880-3.


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

Knitter S, Maurer M, Winter A, Dobrindt E, Seika P, Ritschl P Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(1).

PMID: 38201540 PMC: 10778089. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16010112.


Why pay more for robot in esophageal cancer surgery?.

Rebecchi F, Ugliono E, Allaix M, Morino M Updates Surg. 2022; 75(2):367-372.

PMID: 35953621 PMC: 9852204. DOI: 10.1007/s13304-022-01351-0.


Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chen H, Liu Y, Peng H, Wang R, Wang K, Li D Transl Cancer Res. 2022; 10(11):4601-4616.

PMID: 35116317 PMC: 8798469. DOI: 10.21037/tcr-21-1482.


References
1.
Biere S, van Berge Henegouwen M, Maas K, Bonavina L, Rosman C, Garcia J . Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012; 379(9829):1887-92. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60516-9. View

2.
Yerokun B, Sun Z, Yang C, Gulack B, Speicher P, Adam M . Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016; 102(2):416-23. PMC: 5142521. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.02.078. View

3.
van der Sluis P, Ruurda J, Verhage R, van der Horst S, Haverkamp L, Siersema P . Oncologic Long-Term Results of Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Thoraco-Laparoscopic Esophagectomy with Two-Field Lymphadenectomy for Esophageal Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015; 22 Suppl 3:S1350-6. PMC: 4686562. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-4544-x. View

4.
Chandra V, Nehra D, Parent R, Woo R, Reyes R, Hernandez-Boussard T . A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices. Surgery. 2010; 147(6):830-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2009.11.002. View

5.
Suda K, Ishida Y, Kawamura Y, Inaba K, Kanaya S, Teramukai S . Robot-assisted thoracoscopic lymphadenectomy along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in the prone position: technical report and short-term outcomes. World J Surg. 2012; 36(7):1608-16. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-012-1538-8. View