Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Current status of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: what is the real benefit?

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Surgery Today Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal cancer has been performed increasingly frequently over the last few years. Robotic systems with articulated devices and tremor filtration allow surgeons to perform such procedures more meticulously than by hand. The feasibility of RAMIE has been demonstrated in several retrospective comparative studies, which showed similar short-term outcomes to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (cMIE). Considering the number of harvested lymph nodes, RAMIE may be superior to cMIE in terms of left upper mediastinal lymph node dissection. However, whether or not the addition of a robotic system to cMIE can help improve perioperative and oncological outcomes remains unclear. Given the lack of established evidence from randomized controlled trials, we must await the results of ongoing studies to reach any meaningful conclusions. Further advancements in robotic platforms, as well as the reduction in medical expenses, will be essential to demonstrate the real benefit of RAMIE.

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. Smyth EC, Lagergren J, Fitzgerald RC, Lordick F, Shah MA, Lagergren P, et al. Oesophageal cancer. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017;3:17048.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Otsuka K, Murakami M, Goto S, Ariyoshi T, Yamashita T, Saito A, et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy and radical lymph node dissection without recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis. Surg Endosc. 2020;36:2749–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Takeuchi H, Miyata H, Gotoh M, Kitagawa Y, Baba H, Kimura W, et al. A risk model for esophagectomy using data of 5354 patients included in a Japanese Nationwide web-based database. Ann Surg. 2014;260(2):259–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cuschieri A, Shimi S, Banting S. Endoscopic oesophagectomy through a right thoracoscopic approach. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1992;37:7–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nagpal K, Ahmed K, Vats A, Yakoub D, James D, Ashrafian H, et al. Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1621–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van Hillegersberg R, Boone J, Draaisma WA, Broeders IA, Giezeman MJ, Rinkes IHB. First experience with robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagolymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1435–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. van Hillegersberg R, Seesing MF, Brenkman HJ, Ruurda JP. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy. Chirurg. 2017;88:7–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chiu PW, Teoh AY, Wong VW, Yip HC, Chan SM, Wong SK, et al. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for treatment of esophageal carcinoma. J Robot Surg. 2017;11:193–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rosenblatt PL, McKinney J, Adams SR. Ergonomics in the operating room: protecting the surgeon. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:744.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Catanzarite T, Tan-Kim J, Whitcomb EL, Menefee S. Ergonomics in surgery: a review. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018;24:1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wong SW, Ang ZH, Yang PF, Crowe P. Robotic colorectal surgery and ergonomics. J Robot Surg. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01240-5.

  12. Suda K, Nakauchi M, Inaba K, Ishida Y, Uyama I. Robotic surgery for upper gastrointestinal cancer: current status and future perspectives. Dig Endosc. 2016;28:701–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Noshiro H, Ikeda O, Urata M. Robotically-enhanced surgical anatomy enables surgeons to perform distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer using electric cautery devices alone. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:1180–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ali AM, Bachman KC, Worrell SG, Gray KE, Perry Y, Linden PA, et al. Robotic minimally invasive esophagectomy provides superior surgical resection. Surg Endosc. 2021;35:6329–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Abbas AE, Sarkaria IS. Specific complications and limitations of robotic esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus. 2020;33(Supplement_2):doaa109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Li B, Yang Y, Toker A, Yu B, Kang CH, Abbas G, et al. International consensus statement on robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). J Thorac Dis. 2020;12:7387–401.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Duan X, Yue J, Chen C, Gong L, Ma Z, Shang X, et al. Lymph node dissection around left recurrent laryngeal nerve: robot-assisted vs. video-assisted McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Surg Endosc. 2021;35(11):6108–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Shirakawa Y, Noma K, Kunitomo T, Hashimoto M, Maeda N, Tanabe S, et al. Initial introduction of robot-assisted, minimally invasive esophagectomy using the microanatomy-based concept in the upper mediastinum. Surg Endosc. 2021;35(12):6568–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Giacopuzzi S, Weindelmayer J, de Manzoni G. RAMIE: tradition drives innovation-feasibility of a robotic-assisted intra-thoracic anastomosis. Updates Surg. 2021;73(3):847–52.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Broderick RC, Horgan S, Fuchs HF. Robotic transhiatal esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus. 2020;33(Supplement_2):doaa037.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Peng JS, Kukar M, Hochwald SN. Technique for robotic transhiatal esophagectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27:3037–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nakauchi M, Uyama I, Suda K, Shibasaki S, Kikuchi K, Kadoya S, et al. Robot-assisted mediastinoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: the first clinical series. Esophagus. 2019;16:85–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tokairin Y, Nakajima Y, Kawada K, Hoshino A, Okada T, Ryotokuji T, et al. A feasibility study of mediastinoscopic radical esophagectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer from the viewpoint of the dissected mediastinal lymph nodes validated with thoracoscopic procedure: a prospective clinical trial. Esophagus. 2019;16(2):214–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fujiwara H, Shiozaki A, Konishi H, Kosuga T, Komatsu S, Ichikawa D, et al. Single-port mediastinoscopic lymphadenectomy along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100:1115–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. de Groot EM, Goense L, Ruurda JP, van Hillegersberg R. State of the art in esophagectomy: robotic assistance in the abdominal phase. Updates Surg. 2021;73(3):823–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Na KJ, Park S, Park IK, Kim YT, Kang CH. Outcomes after total robotic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity-matched comparison with hybrid robotic esophagectomy. J Thorac Dis. 2019;11:5310–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Osugi H, Takemura M, Higashino M, Takada N, Lee S, Kinoshita H. A comparison of video-assisted thoracoscopic oesophagectomy and radical lymph node dissection for squamous cell cancer of the oesophagus with open operation. Br J Surg. 2003;90:108–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sihag S, Kosinski AS, Gaissert HA, Wright CD, Schipper PH. Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a comparison of early surgical outcomes from the society of thoracic surgeons national database. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101:1281–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Thirunavukarasu P, Gabriel E, Attwood K, Kukar M, Hochwald SN, Nurkin SJ. Nationwide analysis of short-term surgical outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy for malignancy. Int J Surg. 2016;25:69–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yerokun BA, Sun Z, Jeffrey Yang CF, Gulack BC, Speicher PJ, Adam MA, et al. Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a population-based analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102:416–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Seesing MFJ, Gisbertz SS, Goense L, van Hillegersberg R, Kroon HM, Lagarde SM, et al. A propensity score matched analysis of open versus minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy in the Netherlands. Ann Surg. 2017;266:839–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW, Bonavina L, Rosman C, Garcia JR, et al. Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;379:1887–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mariette C, Markar SR, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS, Meunier B, Pezet D, Collet D, et al. Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:152–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. van der Sluis PC, van der Horst S, May AM, Schippers C, Brosens LAA, Joore HCA, et al. Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2019;269:621–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Chao YK, Li ZG, Wen YW, Kim DJ, Park SY, Chang YL, et al. Robotic-assisted Esophagectomy vs Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy (REVATE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2019;20:346.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Yang Y, Zhang X, Li B, Li Z, Sun Y, Mao T, et al. Robot-assisted esophagectomy (RAE) versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: protocol for a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial (RAMIE trial, robot-assisted minimally invasive Esophagectomy). BMC Cancer. 2019;19:608.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Ninomiya I, Okamoto K, Yamaguchi T, Saito H, Terai S, Moriyama H, et al. Optimization of robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the lateral decubitus position. Esophagus. 2021;18(3):482–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Pointer DT Jr., Saeed S, Naffouje SA, Mehta R, Hoffe SE, Dineen SP et al. Outcomes of 350 robotic-assisted esophagectomies at a high-volume cancer center: a contemporary propensity-score matched analysis. Ann Surg. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004317.

  39. Tsunoda S, Obama K, Hisamori S, Nishigori T, Okamura R, Maekawa H, et al. Lower incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications following robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: propensity score-matched comparison to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(2):639–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Gong L, Jiang H, Yue J, Duan X, Tang P, Ren P, et al. Comparison of the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive, video-assisted minimally invasive, and open esophagectomy. J Thorac Dis. 2020;12:916–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Sarkaria IS, Rizk NP, Goldman DA, Sima C, Tan KS, Bains MS, et al. Early quality of life outcomes after robotic-assisted minimally invasive and open esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;108:920–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Oshikiri T, Goto H, Horikawa M, Urakawa N, Hasegawa H, Kanaji S, et al. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy reduces the risk of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(12):7258.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Chen J, Liu Q, Zhang X, Yang H, Tan Z, Lin Y, et al. Comparisons of short-term outcomes between robot-assisted and thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy with extended two-field lymph node dissection for resectable thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. J Thorac Dis. 2019;11:3874–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. He H, Wu Q, Wang Z, Zhang Y, Chen N, Fu J, et al. Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score matched analysis. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018;13:52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Yang Y, Li B, Yi J, Hua R, Chen H, Tan L, et al. Robot-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: early results of a multicenter randomized controlled trial: the RAMIE trial. Ann Surg. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000005023.

  46. Li XK, Xu Y, Zhou H, Cong ZZ, Wu WJ, Qiang Y, et al. Does robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy have superiority over thoraco-laparoscopic minimally invasive oesophagectomy in lymph node dissection? Dis Esophagus. 2020;34: doaa050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Jin D, Yao L, Yu J, Liu R, Guo T, Yang K, et al. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus the conventional minimally invasive one: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Int J Med Robot. 2019;15: e1988.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Zheng C, Li X-K, Zhang C, Zhou H, Ji S-G, Zhong J-H, et al. Comparison of short-term clinical outcomes between robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy and video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Dis. 2021;13:708.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. van der Sluis PC, Ruurda JP, van der Horst S, Goense L, van Hillegersberg R. Learning curve for robot-assisted minimally invasive thoracoscopic esophagectomy: results from 312 cases. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;106:264–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hernandez JM, Dimou F, Weber J, Almhanna K, Hoffe S, Shridhar R, et al. Defining the learning curve for robotic-assisted esophagogastrectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17:1346–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Park S, Hyun K, Lee HJ, Park IK, Kim YT, Kang CH. A study of the learning curve for robotic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018;53(4):862–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Park SY, Kim DJ, Kang DR, Haam SJ. Learning curve for robotic esophagectomy and dissection of bilateral recurrent laryngeal nerve nodes for esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus. 2017;30:1–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Kingma BF, Hadzijusufovic E, Van der Sluis PC, Bano E, Lang H, Ruurda JP, et al. A structured training pathway to implement robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: the learning curve results from a high-volume center. Dis Esophagus. 2020;33(Supplement_2):doaa047.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Yang Y, Li B, Hua R, Zhang X, Jiang H, Sun Y, et al. Assessment of quality outcomes and learning curve for robot-assisted minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28:676–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Mehdorn AS, Möller T, Franke F, Richter F, Kersebaum JN, Becker T, et al. Long-term, health-related quality of life after open and robot-assisted Ivor-Lewis procedures-a propensity score-matched study. J Clin Med. 2020;9(11):3513.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Vimolratana M, Sarkaria IS, Goldman DA, Rizk NP, Tan KS, Bains MS, et al. Two-year quality of life outcomes after robotic-assisted minimally invasive and open esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2021;112(3):880–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Xu Y, Li XK, Cong ZZ, Zhou H, Wu WJ, Qiang Y, et al. Long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted versus thoraco-laparoscopic McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched study. Dis Esophagus. 2021;34(9):doaa114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sayed AI, Goel S, Aggarwal A, Singh S. Robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: safety, perioperative morbidity and short-term oncological outcome-a single institution experience. J Robot Surg. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01274-9.

  59. Motoyama S, Sato Y, Wakita A, Nagaki Y, Fujita H, Sasamori R, et al. Lower local recurrence rate after robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy than conventional thoracoscopic surgery for esophageal cancer. Sci Rep. 2021;11:6774.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. de Groot EM, van der Horst S, Kingma BF, Goense L, van der Sluis PC, Ruurda JP et al. Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: long-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. Dis Esophagus. 2020;33(Supplement_2):doaa079.

  61. Defize IL, van der Horst S, Bülbul M, Haj Mohammad N, Mook S, Meijer GJ, et al. Salvage robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for T4b esophageal cancer after definitive chemoradiotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28:2730–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. van der Sluis PC, Tagkalos E, Hadzijusufovic E, Babic B, Uzun E, van Hillegersberg R, 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):1–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. van der Sluis P, Egberts JH, Stein H, Sallum R, van Hillegersberg R, Grimminger PP. Transcervical (SP) and Transhiatal DaVinci Robotic esophagectomy: a cadaveric study. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021;69(3):198–203.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. van Boxel GI, Kingma BF, Voskens FJ, Ruurda JP, van Hillegersberg R. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: past, present and future. J Thorac Dis. 2020;12:54–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Enago (www.enago.jp) for the English language review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Esophageal Surgery, Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, 3-8-31 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo, 135-8550, Japan

    Jun Kanamori, Masayuki Watanabe, Suguru Maruyama, Yasukazu Kanie, Daisuke Fujiwara, Kei Sakamoto, Akihiko Okamura & Yu Imamura

Authors
  1. Jun Kanamori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Masayuki Watanabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Suguru Maruyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yasukazu Kanie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daisuke Fujiwara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kei Sakamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Akihiko Okamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yu Imamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masayuki Watanabe.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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

Kanamori, J., Watanabe, M., Maruyama, S. et al. Current status of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: what is the real benefit?. Surg Today 52, 1246–1253 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-021-02432-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-021-02432-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation