Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive and robotic-assisted esophagectomy

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has demonstrated superior outcomes compared to open approaches. The myriad of techniques has precluded the recommendation of a standard approach. The addition of robotics to esophageal resection has potential benefits. We sought to examine the outcomes with MIE to include robotics.

Methods

Utilizing a prospective esophagectomy database, we identified patients who underwent (MIE) Ivor Lewis via thoracoscopic/laparoscopic (TL), transhiatal (TH), or robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis (RAIL). Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and complications were analyzed via ANOVA, χ2, and Fisher exact where appropriate.

Results

We identified 302 patients who underwent MIE: TL 95 (31.5%), TH 63 (20.8%), and RAIL 144 (47.7%) with a mean age of 65 ± 9.6. The length of operation was longer in the RAIL: TL (299 ± 87), TH (231 ± 65), RAIL (409 ± 104 min), p < 0.001. However, the EBL was lower in the patients undergoing transthoracic approaches (RAIL + TL): TL (189 ± 188 ml), TH (242 ± 380 ml), RAIL (155 ± 107 ml), p = 0.03. Conversion to open was also lower in these patients: TL 7 (7.4%), TH 8 (12.7%), RAIL 0, p < 0.001. The R0 resection rate and lymph node (LN) harvest also favored the RAIL cohort: TL 86 (93.5%), TH 60 (96.8%), and RAIL 144 (100%), p = 0.01; LN: TL 14 ± 7, TH 9 ± 6, and RAIL 20 ± 9, p < 0.001. The overall morbidity was lower in MIE patients that underwent a transthoracic approach vs. transhiatal: TL 29 (30.5%), TH 39 (61.9%), RAIL 34 (23.6%), p < 0.001.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing MIE via thoracoscopic/laparoscopic and robotic transthoracic approaches demonstrated lower EBL, morbidity, and conversion to open compared to the transhiatal approach. Additionally the oncologic outcomes measured by R0 resections and LN harvest also favored the patients who underwent a transthoracic approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zhang Y (2013) Epidemiology of esophageal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 19(34):5598–5606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pera M et al (2005) Epidemiology of esophageal adenocarcinoma. J Surg Oncol 92(3):151–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2017) Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 67(1):7–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pennathur A, Luketich JD (2008) Resection for esophageal cancer: strategies for optimal management. Ann Thorac Surg 85:S751–S756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wu PC et al (2003) The role of surgery in the management of oesophageal cancer. Lancet Oncol 4(8):481–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Atkins B et al (2004) Reducing hospital morbidity and mortality following esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 78(4):1170–1176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (2013) Esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancers

  8. Chang AC et al (2008) Outcomes after transhiatal and transthoracic esophagectomy for cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 85(2):424–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pennathur A, Awais O, Luketich JD (2010) Technique of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 89(6):S2159–S2162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. DePaula AL et al (1995) Laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy with esophagogastroplasty. Surg Laparosc Endosc 5(1):1–5

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Van den Broek WT et al (2004) Laparoscopically assisted transhiatal resection for malignancies of the distal esophagus. Surg Endosc 18(5):812–817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cuschieri A (1994) Thoracoscopic subtotal oesophagectomy. Endosc Surg Allied Technol 2(1):21–25

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Luketich JD et al (2003) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcomes in 222 patients. Ann Surg 238(4):486–494 discussion 494-5

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Santillan AA et al (2008) Minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 6(9):879–884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Verhage R et al (2009) Minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancer. Minerva Chir 64(2):135–146

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Safranek P et al (2010) Review of open and minimal access approaches to esophagectomy for cancer. Br J Surg 97(12):1845–1853

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Singh R et al (2011) Minimally invasive esophagectomy provides equivalent oncologic outcomes to open esophagectomy for locally advanced (stage II or III) esophageal carcinoma. Arch Surg 146(6):711–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Biere S et al (2012) Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 379(9829):1887–1892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hernandez JM et al (2013) Defining the learning curve for robotic-assisted esophagogastrectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 17(8):1346–1351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Yamamoto M et al (2013) Minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancer: review of the literature and institutional experience. Cancer Control 20(2):130–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Anderson C et al (2007) Robotic surgery for gastrointestinal malignancies. Int J Med Robot. 3(4):297–300

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Galvani C et al (2008) Robotically assisted laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy. Surg Endosc 22(1):188–195

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Luketich JD et al (2012) Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy. Ann Surg 256(1):95–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Orringer M et al (2007) Two thousand transhiatal esophagectomies: changing trends, lessons learned. Ann Surg 246(3):363–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Nguyen NT et al (2000) Comparison of minimally invasive esophagectomy with transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy. Arch Surg 135(8):920–925

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Nguyen N et al (2008) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: lessons learned from 104 operations. Ann Surg 248(6):1081–1091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Metzger R et al (2004) High volume centers for esophagectomy: what is the number needed to achieve low postoperative mortality? Dis Esophagus 17:310–314

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Schlottmann F et al (2018) Esophageal cancer surgery: spontaneous centralization in the US contributed to reduce mortality without causing health disparities. Ann Surg Oncol 25(6):1580–1587

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee, USA

    Kenneth Meredith, Paige Blinn & Taylor Maramara

  2. Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, Portsmouth, USA

    Caitlin Takahashi

  3. Sarasota Memorial Institute for Cancer Care, Sarasota, USA

    Kenneth Meredith & Jamie Huston

  4. Florida Hospital Cancer Institute, Orlando, USA

    Ravi Shridhar

  5. Gastrointestinal Oncology, Sarasota Memorial Institute for Cancer Care, 1950 Arlington Suite 101, Sarasota, FL, 34239, USA

    Kenneth Meredith

Authors
  1. Kenneth Meredith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paige Blinn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Taylor Maramara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Caitlin Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jamie Huston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ravi Shridhar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CT: Concept and design, data analysis, manuscript writing, and final approval. RS: Concept and design, data analysis and interpretation, manuscript writing, and final approval. JH: Collection and assembly of data and final approval. KM: Concept and design, data analysis and interpretation, manuscript writing, and final approval. PB: Data analysis, manuscript writing, and final approval. TM: Data analysis, manuscript writing, and final approval.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth Meredith.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Dr. Meredith, Dr. Takahashi, Dr. Shridhar, Ms. Blinn, Ms. Maramara, and Ms. Huston have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meredith, K., Blinn, P., Maramara, T. et al. Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive and robotic-assisted esophagectomy. Surg Endosc 34, 814–820 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06834-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06834-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation