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.

Assessing the Performance of the De Novo Postoperative Stress Urinary Incontinence Calculator.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the performance of a previously published stress urinary incontinence (SUI) risk calculator in women undergoing minimally invasive or transvaginal apical suspensions. METHODS: Using a database of stress-continent women who underwent minimally invasive or transvaginal apical suspensions, we calculated 2 prediction risks for development of SUI within 12 months based on inclusion of a "prophylactic" midurethral sling at the time of prolapse surgery. Observed subjective and objective continence status was abstracted from medical records. Regression models were created for the outcome of de novo SUI to generate receiver operating curves. Concordance (c) indices were estimated for the overall and procedure subgroups to determine the calculator's ability to discriminate between SUI outcomes. RESULTS: Analyses included 502 women. De novo SUI was observed in 23.5% of women. The mean ± SD calculated risk of de novo SUI if a sling was performed was 18.9% ± 13.9 at 12 months compared with 36.4% ± 8.3 without sling. The calculator's discriminative ability for those with a planned sling was moderate (c-index = 0.55, P = 0.037). The calculator failed to discriminate continence outcomes when a sling was not planned in the overall group (c-index = 0.50, P = 0.799) and individual apical procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The SUI risk calculator is significantly limited in its ability to predict de novo SUI in our population of women planning minimally invasive apical suspensions. Refinements to the calculator model are needed to improve its utility in clinical practice.