Robot-assisted versus video-assisted thoraco-laparoscopic McKeown's esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis of minimally invasive approaches.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer decreases overall complication rate and leads to faster postoperative recovery. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy is becoming more common. Its three-dimensional view and wristed instruments may provide advantages over traditional thoraco-laparoscopic techniques. There are limited studies comparing robotic and conventional thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy. This study aimed to evaluate short-term outcomes of robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy (RAME) and video-assisted McKeown esophagectomy (VAME). All consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for middle and distal third esophageal cancer between January 2016 and December 2018 at our center were included in this study. Data on baseline characteristics, pathological data and short-term outcomes were collected in a dedicated database. Postoperative complications were defined as per recommendations of Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group. Histopathologic assessment was performed as per College of American Pathologists guidelines. Propensity score matching was performed for comparison between RAME and VAME groups using age, gender, performance status, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, body mass index, Charlson Index, tumor location, clinical tumor stage, and neoadjuvant treatment as covariates. A total of 74 patients were included, 25 of whom underwent RAME and 49 underwent VAME. Propensity score matching on 1:1 basis produced 25 pairs of patients, comparable in terms of baseline characteristics. Total operative time and estimated blood loss was similar between the two groups. Length of hospital stay was significantly lower in RAME group. Major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3A) were more common in VAME group, but not statistically significant. Median number of harvested lymph nodes and R0 resection rate did not differ in between the two groups. In our experience, robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy was comparable to video-assisted McKeown esophagectomy in terms of safety, feasibility and oncologic adequacy. Use of the robot was associated with reduced hospital stay. Further randomized controlled studies with larger patient samples are needed to compare the two.

Short-term and pathologic outcomes of robotic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary and pancreatic head malignancy: an early experience.

Open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is associated with high perioperative morbidity. Adoption of robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD) has been slow despite ergonomic advantages, improved visualization and dexterity. We aim to report our experience comparing operative and short-term outcomes following RAPD and OPD. We did retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database, including all consecutive patients who underwent RAPD or OPD between January 2016 and August 2019. 48 patients were included, 21 in RAPD group and 27 in OPD group. RAPD was associated with longer mean operative time (440 vs. 414.1 min) but had significantly less mean intra-operative blood loss (256.9 vs. 404.5 ml), median length of ICU stay (1 vs. 3 days), overall length of stay (11 vs. 13 days) and lower rates of SSI (23.8% vs. 63%). Both groups showed equal incidence of POPF, comparable R0 resection rates (100% vs. 96.3%) and median number of lymph nodes harvested (14 vs. 18). Rate of open conversion was 28.6% (n = 6), most commonly for bleeding (66.6%) and mesenteric vessel involvement (33.3%). When compared to first ten RAPD cases, mean operative time (483.5 vs. 400.5 min) and rate of conversion (36.36% vs. 20%) was less in last eleven cases. RAPD is significantly better than OPD in terms of intra-operative blood loss, length of ICU stay, length of total stay and SSI. The longer operative time and conversion rate associated with RAPD progressively decreased as experience accumulated and the learning curve was crossed. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to investigate cost-effectiveness and long-term oncologic survival in RAPD patients.