Clinical Outcomes of the Robot-assisted Ivor Lewis Procedure for Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction with Semi-instrument Overlap Intrathoracic Anastomosis

Overview

Journal J Thorac Dis

Publisher AME Publishing Company

Specialty Pulmonary Medicine

Date 2024 Feb 27

PMID 38410564

Authors

Chuangui Chen

Biniam Kidane

Sofoklis Mitsos

Hongjing Jiang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The main difficulty of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis (IL) procedure for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEGJ) is the intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis (IEA). We aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of the IL procedure with the da Vinci surgical system for treatment of AEGJ with semi-mechanical intrathoracic IEA.

Methods: The cohort included 72 patients with AEGJ who received treatment at the Department of Minimally Invasive Esophagus Surgery of the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital from August 2020 to March 2023. Of these 72 patients, 17 received neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy. The robot-assisted minimally invasive IL procedure was performed using a linear stapler for overlap side-to-side intrathoracic anastomosis and the stapler defect was closed with double full-layer continuous sutures by robotic hand-sewn (semi-mechanical) IEA.

Results: Of the 72 AEGJ patients, 2 were converted to exploration, 7 were converted to laparotomy and thoracotomy for circular-stapled intrathoracic anastomosis, and 6 were converted to thoracotomy for circular-stapled anastomosis, which included 2 cases of extensive pleural adhesion and 4 cases of overlap anastomosis failure, whereas 57 underwent the robot-assisted minimally invasive IL procedure with semi-mechanical IEA. Among the 9 patients converted to laparotomy, the laparotomy rate was closely related to the Siewert classification (P<0.005) and preoperative use of neoadjuvant therapy (P<0.05). Among the 57 patients who underwent the robot-assisted minimally invasive IL procedure with semi-mechanical IEA, there were 2 cases of anastomotic leakages (2/57, 3.5%), no case of anastomotic stricture, 5 cases of postoperative pneumonia (5/57, 8.77%), 2 cases of intensive care unit admission (2/57, 3.5%), and 1 case of readmission within 30 days (1/57, 1.75%). None of the patients died within 30 days after surgery.

Conclusions: The robot-assisted minimally invasive IL procedure with semi-mechanical IEA is both safe and feasible for AEGJ. However, caution is advised for patients with Siewert type III AEGJ and those who have already received preoperative neoadjuvant therapy.

References

Mitchell K, Ikoma N, Nelson D, Maru D, Erasmus J, Weston B . Mediastinal Nodal Involvement After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation for Siewert II/III Adenocarcinoma. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019; 108(3):845-851. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.04.024. View

Franke F, Moeller T, Mehdorn A, Beckmann J, Becker T, Egberts J . Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy: A standardized operative technique in 11 steps. Int J Med Robot. 2020; 17(1):1-10. DOI: 10.1002/rcs.2175. View

Awad Z, Abbas S, Puri R, Dalton B, Chesire D . Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy (MILE): technique and outcomes of 100 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc. 2020; 34(7):3243-3255. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07529-0. View

Visser E, van Rossum P, Ruurda J, van Hillegersberg R . Impact of Lymph Node Yield on Overall Survival in Patients Treated With Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Followed by Esophagectomy for Cancer: A Population-based Cohort Study in the Netherlands. Ann Surg. 2017; 266(5):863-869. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002389. View

Duan X, Yue J, Shang X, Chen C, Ma Z, Chen Z . Learning Curve of Robot-Assisted Lymph Node Dissection of the Left Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve: A Retrospective Study of 417 Patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2023; 30(7):3991-4000. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-13430-6. View

Tagkalos E, Goense L, Hoppe-Lotichius M, Ruurda J, Babic B, Hadzijusufovic E . Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer: a propensity-matched analysis. Dis Esophagus. 2019; 33(4). DOI: 10.1093/dote/doz060. View

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

Jin D, Yao L, Yu J, Liu R, Guo T, Yang K . Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus the conventional minimally invasive one: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Int J Med Robot. 2019; 15(3):e1988. DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1988. View

Jiang H, Yu X, Li N, Kong M, Ma Z, Zhou D . Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant sintilimab, oxaliplatin and capecitabine in patients with locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: early results of a phase 2 study. J Immunother Cancer. 2022; 10(3). PMC: 8928365. DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2021-003635. View

10.

Xu Z, Zhuo Z, Song T, Li G, Alai G, Shen X . Pretreatment-assisted robot intrathoracic layered anastomosis: our exploration in Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. J Thorac Dis. 2021; 13(7):4349-4359. PMC: 8339793. DOI: 10.21037/jtd-21-438. View

11.

Meredith K, Blinn P, Maramara T, Takahashi C, Huston J, Shridhar R . Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive and robotic-assisted esophagectomy. Surg Endosc. 2019; 34(2):814-820. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-06834-7. View

12.

Wang F, Zhang H, Zheng Y, Wang Z, Geng Y, Wang Y . Intrathoracic side-to-side esophagogastrostomy with a linear stapler and barbed suture in robot-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. J Surg Oncol. 2019; 120(7):1142-1147. PMC: 6899854. DOI: 10.1002/jso.25698. View

13.

Chouliaras K, Hochwald S, Kukar M . Robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, a review of the technique. Updates Surg. 2021; 73(3):831-838. DOI: 10.1007/s13304-021-01000-y. View

14.

Low D, Alderson D, Cecconello I, Chang A, Darling G, DJourno X . International Consensus on Standardization of Data Collection for Complications Associated With Esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). Ann Surg. 2015; 262(2):286-94. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001098. View

15.

Kurokawa Y, Takeuchi H, Doki Y, Mine S, Terashima M, Yasuda T . Mapping of Lymph Node Metastasis From Esophagogastric Junction Tumors: A Prospective Nationwide Multicenter Study. Ann Surg. 2019; 274(1):120-127. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003499. View

16.

Suzuki S, Kanaji S, Urakawa N, Takiguchi G, Hasegawa H, Matsuda Y . Survival Benefit of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Adenocarcinoma of Esophagogastric Junction. Cancer Diagn Progn. 2022; 1(3):185-191. PMC: 8962799. DOI: 10.21873/cdp.10025. View

17.

van der Wilk B, Hagens E, Eyck B, Gisbertz S, van Hillegersberg R, Nafteux P . Outcomes after totally minimally invasive versus hybrid and open Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy: results from the International Esodata Study Group. Br J Surg. 2022; 109(3):283-290. PMC: 10364762. DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znab432. View

18.

Tagkalos E, van der Sluis P, Berlth F, Poplawski A, Hadzijusufovic E, Lang H . Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma, a randomized controlled trial (ROBOT-2 trial). BMC Cancer. 2021; 21(1):1060. PMC: 8474742. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08780-x. View

19.

Wang W, Chen L, Zhang H, Yang Y, He S, Yuan Y . Modified Intrathoracic Esophagogastrostomy with Minimally Invasive Robot-Assisted Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy for Cancer. Dig Surg. 2018; 36(3):218-225. DOI: 10.1159/000495361. View

20.

Honda M, Kuriyama A, Noma H, Nunobe S, Furukawa T . Hand-sewn versus mechanical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2012; 257(2):238-48. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31826d4723. View