Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intrathoracic Robotic-Sewn Anastomosis During Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy for Cancer: Back to Basics?

  • Multimedia Article
  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

Abstract

Background

To assess the feasibility, clinical utility, and safety of intrathoracic robotic-sewn esophageal anastomosis (IrEA) during Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma of the lower third of the esophagus, or cancer at the gastro-esophageal junction type I (Siewert classification).

Methods

A protocol for completely robotic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (CrIE) and intrathoracic robotic-sewn anastomosis (IrEA) was established at the authors’ institutions from January 2015 through December 2019. Overall surgery-related postoperative complications were analyzed. Overall survival and disease-free survival analysis were performed using standard methods.

Results

The study population consisted of 40 patients. Median operative time was 320 min (sd 62, range 235–500 min), and conversion to open rate was 0%. Anastomotic leak rate was 10%. The mean number of examined lymph nodes (ELN) was 19 (IQR 11–29), and the mean number of positive lymph nodes (PLN) was 3 (IQR 0–5). Short- and long-term surgical and oncological outcomes were comparable at a medium follow-up of 37 months. The median overall survival was 48 months while the mean disease-free survival was 29 months.

Conclusion

This pilot series, in which an intrathoracic robotic-sewn anastomosis (IrEA) was performed during CrIE, demonstrated the safety and feasibility of this approach. Compared to the current standard of care at a high-volume center, IrEA was associated with better postoperative surgical outcomes and similar oncological outcomes to those reported worldwide today. These results call for further validation in a prospective and controlled setting to be fully incorporated into clinical practice.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of the study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

  1. Van Hillegersberg R, Boone J, Draaisma WA, et al. First experience with robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagolymphectomy for esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1435-1439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0674-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O, et al. Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy; review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg. 2012;256:95-103. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182590603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Hawn MT. Technical aspects and early results of robotic esophagectomy with chest anastomosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;145(1):90-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.04.022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. van der Sluis PC, Ruurda JP, van der Horst, et al. The learning curve for robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: results from 312 cases. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;106:264-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.01.038.

  5. Marano A, Salomone S, Pellegrino L, Geretto P, Robella M, Borghi F. Robot-assisted esophagectomy with robot-sewn intrathoracic anastomosis (Ivor Lewis): surgical technique and early results. Updates Surg. 2022 Dec 12:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-022-01439-7. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36510101; PMCID: PMC9744375.

  6. Van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, Van Lanschot JJ, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2074-2084. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1112088.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004; 240:205–201. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae.

  8. Low DE, Alderson D, Cecconello I, et al. International consensus on Standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). Ann Surg. 2015;262(2):286-94. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001098.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rice TW, Ishwaran H, Hofstter WL, et al. Recommendations for pathologic staging (pTNM) of cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction for the 8th edition AJCC/UICC staging manuals. Dis Esophagus. 2016;29(8):897–905. https://doi.org/10.1111/dote.12533.

  10. Verhage RJ, Zandvoort HJ, Ten Kate FJ, et al. How to define a positive circumferential resection margin in T3 adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35:919-926. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e31821a5692.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Huscher C, Lazzarin G, Marchegiani F, Marks J. Robotic right colectomy with robotic-sewn anastomosis: a Pilot case series. J Robot Surg. 2022;6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01435-4.

  12. Huscher C, Marchegiani F, Cobellis F, et al. Robotic oncologic colorectal surgery with a new robotic platform (CMR Versius): hope or hype? A preliminary experience from a full‑robotic case‑series. Tech Coloproctology. 2022;22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-022-02626-9.

  13. van der Sluis PC, Ruurda JP, van der Horst S, et al. Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer, a randomized controlled trial (ROBOT trial). Trials. 2012;13:230. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-230.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. van der Sluis PC, Tagkalos E, Hadzijusufovic E, et al. Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy with Intrathoracic Anastomosis (Ivor Lewis): Promising Results in 100 Consecutive Patients (the European Experience). J Gastrointest Surg. 2021;25:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-019-04510-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cerfolio RJ, Wei B, Hawn MT, Minnich DJ. Robotic Esophagectomy for Cancer: Early Results and Lessons Learned. Seminars in Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2016;28(1):160-169. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semtcvs.2015.10.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhang Y, Xiang J, Han Y, et al. Initial experience of robot-assisted Ivor–Lewis esophagectomy: 61 consecutive cases from a single Chinese institution. Dis Esophagus. 2018;31(12). https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doy048.

  17. Grimminger PP, Handzijusufovic E, Babic B, et al. Innovative fully robotic 4-arm Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer (RAIME4). Dis Esophagus. 2020;16(33). https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doz015.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oncologic Surgery, Robotic and New Technology, Cobellis Clinic, Vallo Della Lucania (SA), Italy

    C. G. S. Huscher

  2. Department of Surgical, Oncological and Gastroenterological Sciences, University of Padua, Padua, Italy

    F. Cobellis

  3. General and Mini-Invasive Surgery, Ospedale San Camillo, Via Giovanelli 19, 38122, Trento, Italy

    G. Lazzarin

Authors
  1. C. G. S. Huscher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Cobellis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Lazzarin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Lazzarin G. contributed to the conception design, surgical management, statistical analysis, data analysis and interpretation, and manuscript writing. Huscher C. G. S. and Cobellis F. contributed to the conception design, surgical management, and to manuscript revising. All authors participated in the collection and/or assembly of data. All authors read, revised, and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Lazzarin.

Ethics declarations

Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1. An end-to-side robotic-sewn anastomosis was created by the adoption of two running barbed sutures. After completion of the anterior wall a nasogastric tube was passed through the half-completed anastomosis. Once the posterior layer was completed, silk interrupted seromuscular sutures were placed circumferentially to reinforce it. (MP4 62429 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Huscher, C.G.S., Cobellis, F. & Lazzarin, G. Intrathoracic Robotic-Sewn Anastomosis During Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy for Cancer: Back to Basics?. J Gastrointest Surg 27, 1034–1041 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-023-05616-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-023-05616-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation