Hybrid laparoscopic versus fully robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: an international propensity-score matched analysis of perioperative outcome.

BACKGROUND: Currently, little is known regarding the optimal technique for the abdominal phase of RAMIE. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in both the abdominal and thoracic phase (full RAMIE) compared to laparoscopy during the abdominal phase (hybrid laparoscopic RAMIE). METHODS: This retrospective propensity-score matched analysis of the International Upper Gastrointestinal International Robotic Association (UGIRA) database included 807 RAMIE procedures with intrathoracic anastomosis between 2017 and 2021 from 23 centers. RESULTS: After propensity-score matching, 296 hybrid laparoscopic RAMIE patients were compared to 296 full RAMIE patients. Both groups were equal regarding intraoperative blood loss (median 200 ml versus 197 ml, p = 0.6967), operational time (mean 430.3 min versus 417.7 min, p = 0.1032), conversion rate during abdominal phase (2.4% versus 1.7%, p = 0.560), radical resection (R0) rate (95.6% versus 96.3%, p = 0.8526) and total lymph node yield (mean 30.4 versus 29.5, p = 0.3834). The hybrid laparoscopic RAMIE group showed higher rates of anastomotic leakage (28.0% versus 16.6%, p = 0.001) and Clavien Dindo grade 3a or higher (45.3% versus 26.0%, p < 0.001). The length of stay on intensive care unit (median 3 days versus 2 days, p = 0.0005) and in-hospital (median 15 days versus 12 days, p < 0.0001) were longer for the hybrid laparoscopic RAMIE group. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid laparoscopic RAMIE and full RAMIE were oncologically equivalent with a potential decrease of postoperative complications and shorter (intensive care) stay after full RAMIE.

Management of anastomotic leakage after robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy with an intrathoracic anastomosis.

Anastomotic leakage is a feared complication after esophagectomy and associated with increased post-operative morbidity and mrotality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the management of leakage after robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) with intrathoracic anastomosis. From a single center prospectively maintained database, all patients with anastomotic leakages defined by the Esophageal Complications Consensus Group between 2016 and 2021 were included. Contained leakage was defined as presence of air or fluid at level of the anastomosis without the involvement of the mediastinum or thorax. Non-contained leakage was defined as mediastinitis and/or mediastinal/pleural fluid collections. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality and the secondary outcome was successful recovery. In this study, 40 patients with anastomotic leakage were included. The 90-day mortality rate was 3% (n = 1). Leakage was considered contained in 29 patients (73%) and non-contained in 11 patients (27%). In the contained group, the majority of the patients were treated non-surgically (n = 27, 93%) and management was successful in 22 patients (76%). In the non-contained group, all patients required a reoperation with thoracic drainage and management was successful in seven patients (64%). Management failed in 11 patients (28%) of whom 7 developed an esophagobronchial fistula, 3 had a disconnection of the anastomosis and 1 died of a septic bleeding. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that the management anastomotic leakage in patients who underwent RAMIE with an intrathoracic anastomosis was successful in 73% of the patients with a 90-day mortality rate of 3%. A differentiated approach for the management of intrathoracic anastomotic leakage is proposed.

Long-term Survival After Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Nationwide Propensity-score Matched Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare long-term survival following MIE versus OE for esophageal cancer using a nationwide propensity-score matched cohort. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: MIE provides lower postoperative morbidity and mortality, and similar short-term oncological quality compared to OE. METHODS: Data was acquired from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit. Patients undergoing minimally invasive or open, transthoracic or transhiatal esophagectomy for primary esophageal cancer between 2011 and 2015 were included. A propensity-score matching analysis for MIE versus OE was performed separately for transthoracic and transhiatal esoph-agectomies. RESULTS: A total of 1036 transthoracic MIE and OE patients, and 582 transhiatal MIE and OE patients were matched. Long-term survival was comparable for MIE and OE for both transthoracic and transhiatal procedures (5-year overall survival: transthoracic MIE 49.2% vs OE 51.1%, P 0.695; transhiatal MIE 48.4% vs OE 50.7%, P 0.832). For both procedures, MIE yielded more lymph nodes (transthoracic median 21 vs 18, P < 0.001; transhiatal 15 vs 13, P 0.007). Postoperative morbidity was comparable after transthoracic MIE and OE (60.8% vs 64.9%, P 0.177), with a reduced length of stay after transthoracic MIE (median 12 vs 15 days, P < 0.001). After transhiatal MIE, more postoperative complications (64.9% vs 56.4%, P 0.034) were observed, without subsequent difference in length of stay. CONCLUSION: Long-term survival after MIE was equivalent to open in both propensity-score matched cohorts of patients undergoing transthoracic or transhiatal esophageal resections. Transhiatal MIE was accompanied withmore postoperative morbidity. Both transthoracic and transhiatal MIE resulted in a more extended lymphadenectomy.

State of the art in esophagectomy: robotic assistance in the abdominal phase.

Over the years, robot-assisted esophagectomy gained popularity. The current literature focused mainly on robotic assistance in the thoracic phase, whereas the implementation of robotic assistance in the abdominal phase is lagging behind. Advantages of adding a robotic system to the abdominal phase include robotic stapling and the increased surgeon's independency. In terms of short-term outcomes and lymphadenectomy, robotic assistance is at least equal to laparoscopy. Yet high quality evidence to conclude on this topic remains scarce. This review focuses on the evidence of robotic assistance in the abdominal phase of esophagectomy.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: long-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial.

Initial results of the ROBOT, which randomized between robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) and open transthoracic esophagectomy (OTE), showed significantly better short-term postoperative outcomes in favor of RAMIE. However, it is not yet clarified if RAMIE is equivalent to OTE regarding long-term outcomes. The aim of this study was to report the long-term oncological results of the ROBOT trial in terms of survival and disease-free survival. This study is a follow-up study of the ROBOT trial, which was a randomized controlled trial comparing RAMIE to OTE in 112 patients with intrathoracic esophageal cancer. Both the trial protocol and short-term results were previously published. The primary outcome of the current study was 5-year overall survival. Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival and recurrence patterns. Analysis was by intention to treat. During the recruitment period, 109 patients were included in the survival analysis (RAMIE n = 54, OTE n = 55). Majority of patients had clinical stage III or IV (RAMIE 63%, OTE 55%) and received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (80%). Median follow-up was 60 months (range 31-60). The combined 5-year overall survival rates for RAMIE and OTE were 41% (95% CI 27-55) and 40% (95% CI 26-53), respectively (log rank test P = 0.827). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 42% (95% CI 28-55) in the RAMIE group and 43% (95% CI 29-57) in the OTE group (log rank test P = 0.749). Out of 104 patients, 57 (55%) developed recurrent disease detected at a median of 10 months (range 0-56) after surgery. No statistically difference in recurrence rate nor recurrence pattern was observed between both groups. Overall survival and disease-free survival of RAMIE are comparable to OTE. These results continue to support the use of robotic surgery for esophageal cancer.

Technical details of the hand-sewn and circular-stapled anastomosis in robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy.

The circular mechanical and hand-sewn intrathoracic anastomosis are most often used in robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). The aim of this study was to describe the technical details of both techniques that were pioneered in two high volume centers for RAMIE. A prospectively maintained database was used to identify patients with esophageal cancer who underwent RAMIE with intrathoracic anastomosis. The primary outcome was anastomotic leakage, which was analyzed using a moving average curve. For the hand-sewn anastomosis, video recordings were reviewed to evaluate number of sutures and distances between the anastomosis and the longitudinal staple line or gastric conduit tip. Between 2016 and 2019, a total of 68 patients with a hand-sewn anastomosis and 60 patients with a circular-stapled anastomosis were included in the study. For the hand-sewn anastomosis, the moving average curve for anastomotic leakage (including grade 1-3) started at a rate of 40% (cases 1-10) and ended at 10% (cases 59-68). For the circular-stapled anastomosis, the moving average started at 10% (cases 1-10) and ended at 20% (cases 51-60). This study showed the technical details and refinements that were applied in developing two different anastomotic techniques for RAMIE. Results markedly improved during the period of development with specific changes in technique for the hand-sewn anastomosis. The circular-stapled anastomosis showed a more stable rate of performance.