» Articles » PMID: 38755464

Technical Feasibility and Oncological Outcomes of Robotic Esophagectomy Compared with Conventional Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy for Clinical T3 or T4 Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer: a Propensity-matched Analysis

Overview
Journal Surg Endosc
Publisher Springer
Date 2024 May 16
PMID 38755464
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive esophagectomy is the first-line approach for esophageal cancer; however, there has recently been a paradigm shift toward robotic esophagectomy (RE). We investigated the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent RE compared with those of patients who underwent conventional minimally invasive thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) for locally advanced cT3 or cT4 esophageal cancer using a propensity-matched analysis.

Methods: Overall, 342 patients with locally advanced cT3 or cT4 esophageal cancer underwent transthoracic esophagectomy with total mediastinal lymph node dissection between 2018 and 2022. The propensity-matched analysis was performed to assign the patients to either RE or TE by covariates of histological type, tumor location, and clinical N factor.

Results: Overall, 87 patients were recruited in each of the RE and TE groups according to the propensity-matched analysis. The total complication rate and the rates of the three major complications (recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis, anastomotic leakage, and pneumonia) were not significantly different between the RE and TE groups. However, the peak C-reactive protein concentration on postoperative day 3, rate of surgical site infection, and intensive care unit length of stay after surgery were significantly shorter in the RE group than in the TE group. No significant differences were observed in the harvested total and mediastinal lymph nodes. The total operation time was significantly longer in the RE group, while the thoracic operation time was shorter in the RE group than in the TE group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the recurrence rate of oncological outcomes after surgery.

Conclusion: RE may facilitate early recovery after esophagectomy with total mediastinal lymph node dissection and has the same technical feasibility and oncological outcomes as TE.

Citing Articles

A standardized protocol for robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: improving efficiency and reducing costs.

Kitagami H, Poudel S, Kitayama Y, Koinuma J, Ebihara Y, Hirano S J Robot Surg. 2025; 19(1):107.

PMID: 40063141 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-025-02269-6.

References
1.
Al-Batran S, Homann N, Pauligk C, Goetze T, Meiler J, Kasper S . Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.... Lancet. 2019; 393(10184):1948-1957. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32557-1. View

2.
Shapiro J, van Lanschot J, Hulshof M, van Hagen P, van Berge Henegouwen M, Wijnhoven B . Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for oesophageal or junctional cancer (CROSS): long-term results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015; 16(9):1090-1098. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00040-6. View

3.
Kelly R, Ajani J, Kuzdzal J, Zander T, Van Cutsem E, Piessen G . Adjuvant Nivolumab in Resected Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2021; 384(13):1191-1203. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2032125. View

4.
Yamashita K, Watanabe M, Mine S, Toihata T, Fukudome I, Okamura A . Minimally invasive esophagectomy attenuates the postoperative inflammatory response and improves survival compared with open esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer: a propensity score matched analysis. Surg Endosc. 2018; 32(11):4443-4450. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6187-z. View

5.
Kalff M, Fransen L, de Groot E, Gisbertz S, Nieuwenhuijzen G, Ruurda J . Long-term Survival After Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Nationwide Propensity-score Matched Analysis. Ann Surg. 2020; 276(6):e749-e757. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004708. View