Comparison of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: A propensity-matched study from a single high-volume institution.

OBJECTIVE: Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy accounts for a growing proportion of esophagectomies, potentially due to improved technical capabilities simplifying the challenging aspects of standard minimally invasive esophagectomy. However, there is limited evidence directly comparing both operations. The objective is to evaluate the short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy in comparison with the minimally invasive esophagectomy approach for patients with esophageal cancer over a 7-year period at a high-volume center. The primary end points of this study were overall survival and disease-free survival. Secondary end points included operation-specific morbidity, lymph node yield, readmission status, and in-hospital, 30-day, and 90-day mortality. METHODS: Patients who underwent robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy or standard minimally invasive esophagectomy over a 7-year period were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Inclusion criteria were patients with stage I to III disease, operations performed past the learning curve, and no evidence of scleroderma or cirrhosis. A 1:3 propensity match (robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy:minimally invasive esophagectomy) for multiple clinical covariates was performed to identify the final study cohort. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the 2 operations. RESULTS: A total of 734 patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy (n = 630) or robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (n = 104) for esophageal cancer were identified. After exclusions and matching, a total cohort of 246 patients undergoing robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (n = 65) or minimally invasive esophagectomy (n = 181) were identified. There was no difference in overall survival (P = .69) or disease-free survival (P = .70). There were no significant differences in rates of major morbidity: pneumonia (17% vs 17%, P = .34), chylothorax (8% vs 9%, P = .95), recurrent laryngeal nerve injury (0% vs 1.5%, P = 1), anastomotic leak (5% vs 4%, P = .49), intraoperative complications (9% vs 8%, P = .73), or complete resection rates (99% vs 96%, P = .68). There was no difference in in-hospital (P = .89), 30-day (P = .66) or 90-day mortality (P = .73) between both cohorts. The robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy cohort yielded a higher median lymph node harvest in comparison with the minimally invasive esophagectomy cohort (32 vs 29, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy may improve lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy and robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy are otherwise associated with similar mortality, morbidity, and perioperative outcomes. Further prospective study is required to investigate whether improved lymph node resection may translate to improved oncologic outcomes.

Shortened Antimicrobial Treatment for Acute Otitis Media in Young Children.

BACKGROUND: Limiting the duration of antimicrobial treatment constitutes a potential strategy to reduce the risk of antimicrobial resistance among children with acute otitis media. METHODS: We assigned 520 children, 6 to 23 months of age, with acute otitis media to receive amoxicillin-clavulanate either for a standard duration of 10 days or for a reduced duration of 5 days followed by placebo for 5 days. We measured rates of clinical response (in a systematic fashion, on the basis of signs and symptomatic response), recurrence, and nasopharyngeal colonization, and we analyzed episode outcomes using a noninferiority approach. Symptom scores ranged from 0 to 14, with higher numbers indicating more severe symptoms. RESULTS: Children who were treated with amoxicillin-clavulanate for 5 days were more likely than those who were treated for 10 days to have clinical failure (77 of 229 children [34%] vs. 39 of 238 [16%]; difference, 17 percentage points [based on unrounded data]; 95% confidence interval, 9 to 25). The mean symptom scores over the period from day 6 to day 14 were 1.61 in the 5-day group and 1.34 in the 10-day group (P=0.07); the mean scores at the day-12-to-14 assessment were 1.89 versus 1.20 (P=0.001). The percentage of children whose symptom scores decreased more than 50% (indicating less severe symptoms) from baseline to the end of treatment was lower in the 5-day group than in the 10-day group (181 of 227 children [80%] vs. 211 of 233 [91%], P=0.003). We found no significant between-group differences in rates of recurrence, adverse events, or nasopharyngeal colonization with penicillin-nonsusceptible pathogens. Clinical-failure rates were greater among children who had been exposed to three or more children for 10 or more hours per week than among those with less exposure (P=0.02) and were also greater among children with infection in both ears than among those with infection in one ear (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among children 6 to 23 months of age with acute otitis media, reduced-duration antimicrobial treatment resulted in less favorable outcomes than standard-duration treatment; in addition, neither the rate of adverse events nor the rate of emergence of antimicrobial resistance was lower with the shorter regimen. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Research Resources; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01511107 .).