Safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.

Esophagectomy is associated with substantial morbidity. Robotic surgery allows complex resections to be performed with potential benefits over conventional techniques. We applied this technology to transthoracic esophagectomy to assess safety, feasibility, and reliability of this technology. A retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing robotic-assisted Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (RAIL) from 2009 to 2014 was conducted. Clinicopathologic factors and surgical outcomes were recorded and compared. All statistical tests were two-sided and a P-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. We identified 147 patients with an average age 66 ± 10 years. Neoadjuvant therapy was administered to 114 (77.6%) patients, and all patients underwent a R0 resection. The mean operating room (OR) time was 415 ± 84.6 minutes with a median estimated blood loss (EBL) of 150 (25-600) mL. Mean intensive care unit (ICU) stay was 2.00 ± 4.5 days, median length of hospitalization (LOH) was 9 (4-38) days, and readmissions within 90 days were low at 8 (5.5%). OR time decreased from 471 minutes to 389 minutes after 20 cases and a further decrease to mean of 346 minutes was observed after 120 cases. Complications occurred in 37 patients (25.2%). There were 4 anastomotic (2.7%) leaks. Thirty and 90-day mortality was 0.68% and 1.4%, respectively. This represents to our knowledge the largest series of robotic esophagectomies. RAIL is a safe surgical technique that provides an alternative to standard minimally invasive and open techniques. In our series, there was no increased risk of LOH, complications, or death and re-admission rates were low despite earlier discharge.

The importance of pre-operative needle core breast biopsy results on resected tissue volume, margin status, and cosmesis.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between pre-operative image-guided large needle core biopsy (LNCB) histopathology results and surgical resection volumes in breast conserving surgery (BCS), with attention to both margin status and cosmetic outcome. METHODS: Breast volumes (BV) were calculated using the elliptical cone based formula on mammography images for each patient. Initial resected volume (IRV), final resected volume (FRV), and resected volume ratio (RVR) were calculated and compared according to histopathological diagnosis and cosmetic outcomes. Final pathology results were classified as benign, high risk lesion (HRL), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), or invasive cancer. The cosmetic results were graded based on the Harvard breast cosmesis grading scale. RESULTS: A total of 217 women underwent BCS by the same experienced breast surgeon. The resected volumes (mean, cm3) were higher among patients who underwent LNCB than those who did not (54.3 vs 26.5 ;p=0.005). The LNCB diagnoses were 16% benign, 19% HRLs, 16% DCIS, and 49% invasive cancers. Reexcision rates were 15.6% and 25.8% for DCIS and invasive cancer, respectively. Cosmesis was excellent in 79.8%. Age, pathological tumor size, IRV and FRV were different among the benign, HRLs and carcinoma groups (p= 0.001). CONCLUSION: The diagnosis of carcinoma by LNCB leads to the planning of a wider resection, but the need for reexcision is no different than less resection. HRLs are best approached with diagnostic excision, as there is no strong evidence that larger resections reduce the incidence of involved resection margins.