Abstract
Introduction
Robotic minimally invasive esophagectomy (RMIE) and “traditional” minimally invasive esophagectomy techniques (tMIE) have reported superior outcomes relative to open techniques. Differences in the outcomes of these two approaches have not been examined. We hypothesized that short-term outcomes of RMIE would be superior to tMIE.
Methods and procedures
The National Cancer Database was used to analyze outcomes of patients undergoing RMIE and tMIE from 2010 to 2016. Patients with clinical metastatic disease were excluded. Trends in the number of procedures performed with each approach were described using linear regression testing. Primary outcome of interest was 90-day mortality rate. Secondary outcomes of interest were positive surgical margin rate, number of lymph nodes (LN) removed, adequate lymphadenectomy (> 15 LNs), length of hospitalization (LOS), readmission rate, and conversion to open rate. Outcomes of RMIE and tMIE were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test and chi square test as appropriate. Multivariable regression was also performed to reduce the impact of differences in the cohorts of patients receiving RMIE and tMIE.
Results
6661 minimally invasive esophagectomies were performed from 2010 to 2016 (1543/6661 (23.2%) RMIE and 5118/6661 (76.8%) tMIE). Over the study period, the proportion of RMIE increased from 10.4% (64/618) in 2010 to 27.2% (331/1216) in 2016 (p < 0.001) (Fig. 1). The primary outcome of 90-day mortality was similar between RMIE and tMIE (92/1170 (7.4%) vs 305/4148 (7.9%), p = 0.558) (Table 2). RMIE and tMIE also had similar readmission rate (6.3 vs 7%, p = 0.380). There was no difference between the cohorts based on sex, age, race, insurance, and tumor size. The cohorts of patients receiving RMIE and tMIE differed in that RMIE patients had lower rates of elevated Charlson scores, were more likely to be treated at an academic institution, had a higher rate of advanced clinical T-stage and clinical nodal involvement, and had received neoadjuvant therapy. In a univariate analysis, RMIE had a lower rate of positive margin (3.9 vs 6.1%, p = 0.001), more mean lymph nodes evaluated (16.6 ± 9.74 vs 16.1 ± 10.08 p = 0.018), lower conversion to open rate (5.4 vs 11.4%, p < 0.001), and a shorter mean length of stay (12.1 ± 10.39 vs 12.8 ± 11.18 days, p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, RMIE was associated with lower risk of conversion to open (OR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.37–0.70, p < 0.001) and lower rate of positive margin (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.41–0.93, p = 0.021).). Additionally, in a multivariable logistic regression, RMIE demonstrated superior adequate lymphadenectomy (> 15 LNs) (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02–1.37, p < 0.032).
Conclusion
In the National Cancer Database, robotic esophagectomy is associated with superior rate of conversion to open and positive surgical margin status. We speculate enhanced dexterity and visualization of RMIE facilitates intraoperative performance leading to improvement in these outcomes.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Deng H-Y, Luo J, Li S-X, Li G, Alai G, Wang Y, Liu L-X, Lin Y-D (2019) Does robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy really have the advantage of lymphadenectomy over video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy in treating esophageal squamous cell carcinoma? A propensity score-matched analysis based on short-term outcomes. Dis Esophagus. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doy110
Emmert A, Straube C, Buentzel J, Roever C (2017) Robotic versus thoracoscopic lung resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 96:e7633
Gottlieb-Vedi E, Kauppila JH, Malietzis G, Nilsson M, Markar SR, Lagergren J (2019) Long-term survival in esophageal cancer after minimally invasive compared to open esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 270(6):1005–1017
Huang L, Onaitis M (2014) Minimally invasive and robotic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. J Thorac Dis 6:314–321
Kernstine KH et al (2007) The first series of completely robotic esophagectomies with three-field lymphadenectomy: initial experience. Surg Endos 21:2285–2292
Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O, Levy RM, Keeley S, Shende M, Christie NA, Weksler B, Landreneau RJ, Abbas G, Schuchert MJ (2012) Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg 256(1):95
Patel K, Askari A, Moorthy K (2020) Long-term oncological outcomes following completely minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus 33(6):doz113. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doz113
PDQ Adult Treatment Editorial Board. Esophageal Cancer Treatment. PDQ Cancer Information Summaries. 2020.
Sakamoto T, Fujiogi M, Matsui H, Fushimi K, Yasunaga H (2019) Comparing perioperative mortality and morbidity of minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Ann Surg. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003500
Sihag S, Kosinski A, Gaissert H, Wright C, Schipper P (2020) Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a comparison of early surgical outcomes from the society of thoracic surgeons national database. Ann Thoracic Surg 2016(101):1281–1289
Su C, Peng C, Agbodza E et al (2018) Publication trend, resource utilization, and impact of the US National Cancer Database: a systematic review. Medicine (Baltimore) 97(9):e9823
van der Sluis PC, van der Horst S, May AM et al. (2019) Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 269(4):621–630
Weksler B et al (2012) Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy is equivalent to thoracoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus 25:403–409
Worrell SG, Bachman KC, Sarode AL, Perry Y, Linden PA, Towe CW (2020) Minimally invasive esophagectomy is associated with superior survival, lymphadenectomy and surgical margins: propensity matched analysis of the National Cancer Database. Dis Esophagus. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doaa017
Yang S, Guo W, Chen X, Wu H, Li H (2018) Early outcomes of robotic versus uniportal video-assisted thoracic surgery for lung cancer: a propensity score-matched study. Eur J CardiothoracSurg 53(2):48–352
Yang Y, Zhang X, Li B et al (2019) Short- and mid-term outcomes of robotic versus thoraco-laparoscopic McKeown esophagectomy for squamous cell esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched study. Dis Esophagus. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doz080
Yerokun BA, Sun Z, Yang CJ et al (2016) Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a population-based analysis. Ann ThoracSurg 102(2):416–423
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosures
CW Towe reports that he is a consultant for Zimmer Biomet, Sig Medical, Atricure, and Medtronic. CW Towe has received grant funding for an unrelated project from Zimmer Biomet. These relationships have not affected this manuscript or the accuracy of the data analysis. All other authors have no disclaimers, sources of funding, or financial relationships to declare.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ali, A.M., Bachman, K.C., Worrell, S.G. et al. Robotic minimally invasive esophagectomy provides superior surgical resection. Surg Endosc 35, 6329–6334 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08120-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08120-3