» Articles » PMID: 33660122

Risk of Chyle Leak After Robotic Versus Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy

Overview
Journal Surg Endosc
Publisher Springer
Date 2021 Mar 4
PMID 33660122
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Evaluating Postoperative Morbidity and Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Esophagectomy in Esophageal Cancer Treatment-A Comprehensive Review on Behalf of TROGSS (The Robotic Global Surgical Society) and EFISDS (European Federation International Society....

Vashist Y, Goyal A, Shetty P, Girnyi S, Cwalinski T, Skokowski J Curr Oncol. 2025; 32(2).

PMID: 39996872 PMC: 11854120. DOI: 10.3390/curroncol32020072.


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.


Is Robotic Surgery the Future for Resectable Esophageal Cancer?: A Systematic Literature Review of Oncological and Clinical Outcomes.

Patel N, Patel P, Yeung K, Monk D, Mohammadi B, Mughal M Ann Surg Oncol. 2024; 31(7):4281-4297.

PMID: 38480565 PMC: 11164768. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-024-15148-5.


Robot-assisted esophagectomy with robot-sewn intrathoracic anastomosis (Ivor Lewis): surgical technique and early results.

Marano A, Salomone S, Pellegrino L, Geretto P, Robella M, Borghi F Updates Surg. 2022; 75(4):941-952.

PMID: 36510101 PMC: 9744375. DOI: 10.1007/s13304-022-01439-7.


Long-term Outcomes Following Esophagectomy in Older and Younger Adults with Esophageal Cancer.

Dezube A, Cooper L, Mazzola E, Dolan D, Lee D, Kucukak S J Gastrointest Surg. 2022; 26(6):1119-1131.

PMID: 35357674 PMC: 9474270. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-022-05295-z.

References
1.
Cuschieri A, Shimi S, Banting S . Endoscopic oesophagectomy through a right thoracoscopic approach. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1992; 37(1):7-11. View

2.
Lv L, Hu W, Ren Y, Wei X . Minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. Onco Targets Ther. 2016; 9:6751-6762. PMC: 5096744. DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S112105. View

3.
van der Sluis P, Tagkalos E, Hadzijusufovic E, Babic B, Uzun E, van Hillegersberg R . Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy with Intrathoracic Anastomosis (Ivor Lewis): Promising Results in 100 Consecutive Patients (the European Experience). J Gastrointest Surg. 2020; 25(1):1-8. PMC: 7850999. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-019-04510-8. View

4.
Horgan S, Berger R, Elli E, Espat N . Robotic-assisted minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy. Am Surg. 2003; 69(7):624-6. View

5.
van der Sluis P, Ruurda J, van der Horst S, Goense L, van Hillegersberg R . Learning Curve for Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy: Results From 312 Cases. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018; 106(1):264-271. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.01.038. View