Comparison of clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted and video-assisted esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

被引:0
|
作者
Yuksel, Sercan [1 ]
Topal, Ugur [2 ]
Songur, Mehmet Z. [1 ]
Calikoglu, Ismail [1 ]
Karakose, Erdal [3 ]
Ercan, Erdal [1 ]
Teke, Zafer [3 ]
Bektas, Hasan [1 ]
机构
[1] Basaksehir Cam & Sakura City Hosp, Dept Gen Surg, TR-34480 Istanbul, Turkiye
[2] Basaksehir Cam & Sakura City Hosp, Dept Surg Oncol, Istanbul, Turkiye
[3] Basaksehir Cam & Sakura City Hosp, Dept Gastroenterol Surg, Istanbul, Turkiye
关键词
Clinical outcomes; esophageal cancer; lymph node dissection; robotic esophagectomy; thoracoscopic esophagectomy;
D O I
10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_2518_22
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Introduction: Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is a recently developed technique for the treatment of resectable esophageal cancer. The present study compares the outcomes of RAMIE and video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (VATE). Method: Patients undergoing minimally invasive esophageal surgery between December 2020 and September 2022 were included in the study, while those undergoing conventional surgery were excluded. The patients were divided into two groups, as those undergoing RAMIE (Group 1) and those undergoing VATE (Group 2). The demographic and clinical characteristics, intraoperative parameters, pathological data, and postoperative parameters of the groups were compared. Results: A total of 28 patients were included in the study, with 13 patients in Group 1 and 15 patients in Group 2. The gender distribution was similar (P = 0.488), and the mean age was 64.7 and 59.0 years in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.068). The majority of the sample was in the ASA2 category (46.2% vs. 66.7%, P = 0.341); Ca19.9 levels were higher in Group 1 than in Group 2 (25.7 vs. 13.7, P = 0.027); preoperative Hb was lower in Group 1 than in Group 2 (10.9 g/dL vs. 12.2 g/dL, P = 0.043); the most commonly performed surgery was the McKeown procedure (69.2% vs. 66.7%, P = 0.492); an intraoperative feeding jejunostomy was placed only in Group 2; the operation time was similar between the groups (338.5 min vs. 340 min, P = 0.916); and the distribution of tumor localizations was similar between the groups (P = 0.407). In terms of tumor histology, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) was the most common tumor type in the two groups (84.6% vs. 80%, P = 0.636); the tumor diameter was similar between the groups (14.9 vs. 18.1, P = 0.652); the number of removed lymph nodes was similar between the groups (24.9 vs. 22.5, P = 0.419); and the number of metastatic lymph nodes was higher in Group 2 (0.08 vs. 1.07, P = 0.27). One patient in Group 2 underwent repeat surgery due to suspected ischemic anastomosis; the distribution of postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system was similar in the two groups (P = 0.650); there was no early mortality within the first 30 days in either group; one patient in Group 2 was re-admitted within 90 days of discharge with decreased oral intake; the length of hospital stay was shorter in Group 1 (9 days vs. 16.5 days, P = 0.006); and the patients in Group 2 more often received neoadjuvant therapy in proportion to the disease stage (15.4% vs. 60%, P = 0.016). Conclusion: Robotic procedures can be safely performed in esophageal cancers with complication rates and oncological radicality similar to those of other minimally invasive techniques.
引用
收藏
页码:410 / 416
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Video-assisted esophagectomy for esophageal cancer
    Shichinohe, Toshiaki
    Hirano, Satoshi
    Kondo, Satoshi
    [J]. SURGERY TODAY, 2008, 38 (03) : 206 - 213
  • [2] Video-assisted esophagectomy for esophageal cancer
    Toshiaki Shichinohe
    Satoshi Hirano
    Satoshi Kondo
    [J]. Surgery Today, 2008, 38 : 206 - 213
  • [3] Video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer
    Kawahara, K
    Maekawa, T
    Okabayashi, K
    Hideshima, T
    Shiraishi, T
    Yoshinaga, Y
    Shirakusa, T
    [J]. SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY-ULTRASOUND AND INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 1999, 13 (03): : 218 - 223
  • [4] Video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer
    K. Kawahara
    T. Maekawa
    K. Okabayashi
    T. Hideshima
    T. Shiraishi
    Y. Yoshinaga
    T. Shirakusa
    [J]. Surgical Endoscopy, 1999, 13 : 218 - 223
  • [5] THE COMPARATIVE HEALTHCARE COST BETWEEN ROBOTIC ESOPHAGECTOMY AND VIDEO-ASSISTED ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER IN JAPAN
    Hong, Y. E.
    Shin, M.
    Lin, P. L.
    Forrest, B.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2023, 26 (12) : S197 - S197
  • [6] Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted, Video-Assisted, and Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Mederos, Michael A.
    de Virgilio, Michael J.
    Shenoy, Rivfka
    Ye, Linda
    Toste, Paul A.
    Mak, Selene S.
    Booth, Marika S.
    Begashaw, Meron M.
    Wilson, Mark
    Gunnar, William
    Shekelle, Paul G.
    Maggard-Gibbons, Melinda
    Girgis, Mark D.
    [J]. JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2021, 4 (11) : E2129228
  • [7] Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Transhiatal Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation
    Coker, Alisa M.
    Barajas-Gamboa, Juan S.
    Cheverie, Joslin
    Jacobsen, Garth R.
    Sandler, Bryan J.
    Talamini, Mark A.
    Bouvet, Michael
    Horgan, Santiago
    [J]. JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 2014, 24 (02): : 89 - 94
  • [8] A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF ROBOTIC-ASSISTED SURGERY IN ESOPHAGEAL CANCER: COMPARISON WITH OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY
    Jeong, C. H.
    Kim, Y. L.
    [J]. VALUE IN HEALTH, 2023, 26 (12) : S385 - S385
  • [9] Robotic-assisted Esophagectomy vs Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy (REVATE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
    Chao, Yin-Kai
    Li, Zhi-Gang
    Wen, Yu-Wen
    Kim, Dae-Joon
    Park, Seong-Yong
    Chang, Yu-Ling
    van der Sluis, Pieter C.
    Ruurda, Jelle P.
    van Hillegersberg, Richard
    [J]. TRIALS, 2019, 20 (1)
  • [10] Robotic-assisted Esophagectomy vs Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy (REVATE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
    Yin-Kai Chao
    Zhi-Gang Li
    Yu-Wen Wen
    Dae-Joon Kim
    Seong-Yong Park
    Yu-Ling Chang
    Pieter C. van der Sluis
    Jelle P. Ruurda
    Richard van Hillegersberg
    [J]. Trials, 20