Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Meta-analysis of robot-assisted versus video-assisted McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Updates in Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We aim to review the available literature on patients with esophageal cancer treated with robot-assisted (RAME) or video-assisted McKeown’s esophagectomy (VAME), to compare the efficacy and safety of the two approaches. Original research studies that evaluated perioperative and oncologic outcomes of RAME versus VAME were identified, from January 1990 to July 2022. The 90-day mortality, the R0 resection rate, the dissected lymph nodes, the perioperative parameters, and the complications were calculated according to a fixed and a random effect model. The Q statistics and I2 statistic were used to test for heterogeneity among the studies. Seven studies were included, incorporating a total of 1617 patients treated with RAME or VAME. The 90-day mortality was similar between the two groups. No difference was found regarding the R0 resection rate and the number of dissected lymph nodes. In addition, the perioperative parameters, along with the total complications were similar between RAME and VAME. Nonetheless, the incidence of postoperative pneumonia was higher in the VAME group (OR:0.67 [95% CI: 0.49, 0.93]; p = 0.02). Finally, our outcomes were further validated by sensitivity analysis including only studies performing propensity score-matched analysis. Our meta-analysis showed that RAME was equivalent to VAME in terms of safety, feasibility, and oncologic adequacy. These results should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of included studies. New Randomized Controlled trials, that are currently active, will provide further evidence with greater clarity to assess the effectiveness and safety of RAME for esophageal cancer.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J (2012) Jemal A (2015) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 65(2):87–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Samarasam I (2017) Esophageal cancer in India: current status and future perspectives. Int J Adv Med Health Res 4(1):5–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sakamoto T, Fujiogi M, Matsui H, Fushimi K, Yasunaga H (2021) Comparing perioperative mortality and morbidity of minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a nationwide retrospective analysis. Ann Surg 274(2):324–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wang K, Zhong J, Liu Q, Lin P, Fu J (2022) A Propensity score-matched analysis of thoracolaparoscopic vs open mckeown’s esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 113(2):473–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.02.012 (Epub 2021 Feb 20)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Straatman J, van der Wielen N, Cuesta MA, Daams F, Roig Garcia J, Bonavina L et al (2017) Minimally invasive versus open esophageal resection: three-year follow-up of the previously reported randomized controlled trial: the TIME trial. Ann Surg 266(2):232–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Guo W, Ma X, Yang S, Zhu X, Qin W, Xiang J et al (2016) Combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: a meta-analysis of outcomes. Surg Endosc 30(9):3873–3881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bonavina L, Asti E, Sironi A, Bernardi D, Aiolfi A (2017) Hybrid and total minimally invasive esophagectomy: how I do it. J Thorac Dis 9(Suppl 8):S761–S772. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2017.06.55.PMID:28815072;PMCID:PMC5538984

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Bonavina L, Scolari F, Aiolfi A, Bonitta G, Sironi A, Saino G, Asti E (2016) Early outcome of thoracoscopic and hybrid esophagectomy: propensity-matched comparative analysis. Surgery 159(4):1073–1081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2015.08.019 (Epub 2015 Sep 28 PMID: 26422764)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Angeramo CA, Bras Harriott C, Casas MA, Schlottmann F (2021) Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-thoracoscopic technique. System rev meta-analysis Surg 170(6):1692–1701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2021.07.013 (Epub 2021 Aug 11)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 62:1

    Google Scholar 

  11. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011 www.cochrane-handbook.org

  12. Stang A (2010) Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 25:603–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC et al (2016) ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions. BMJ 355:4919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315(7109):629–634

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Chao YK, Hsieh MJ, Liu YH, Liu HP (2018) Lymph node evaluation in robot-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a propensity-matched analysis. World J Surg 42(2):590–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4179-0 (PMID: 28801820)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Duan X, Yue J, Chen C, Gong L, Ma Z, Shang X, Yu Z, Jiang H (2021) Lymph node dissection around left recurrent laryngeal nerve: robot-assisted vs. video-assisted McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Surg Endosc 35(11):6108–6116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08105-2 (Epub 2020 Oct 26 PMID: 33104915; PMCID: PMC7586865)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kulkarni A, Mulchandani JG, Sadat MS, Shetty N, Shetty S, Kumar MP, Kudari A (2022) Robot-assisted versus video-assisted thoraco-laparoscopic McKeown’s esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis of minimally invasive approaches. J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01367-z (Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35044671)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Oshikiri T, Goto H, Horikawa M, Urakawa N, Hasegawa H, Kanaji S, Yamashita K, Matsuda T, Nakamura T, Kakeji Y (2021) Incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy in robot-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive mckeown esophagectomy in prone position: a propensity score-matched study. Ann Surg Oncol 28(12):7249–7257. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-10123-w (Epub 2021 May 25 PMID: 34032960)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Trung LV, Loc NVV, Tien TPD, Ai BD, Lam TLQ, Vuong NL (2021) Robot-assisted versus thoraco-laparoscopic mckeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched study. J Gastrointest Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-021-05200-0 (Epub ahead of print PMID: 34786664)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Xu Y, Li XK, Cong ZZ, Zhou H, Wu WJ, Qiang Y, Yi J, Shen Y (2021) Long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted versus thoraco-laparoscopic McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched study. Dis Esophagus 34(9):114. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doaa114 (PMID: 33150401)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Yang Y, Zhang X, Li B, Hua R, Yang Y, He Y, Ye B, Guo X, Sun Y, Li Z (2020) Short- and mid-term outcomes of robotic versus thoraco-laparoscopic McKeown esophagectomy for squamous cell esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched study. Dis Esophagus 33(6):80. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doz080 (PMID: 31608939)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Napier KJ, Scheerer M, Misra S (2014) Esophageal cancer: a review of epidemiology, pathogenesis, staging workup and treatment modalities. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 6(5):112–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Then EO, Lopez M, Saleem S et al (2020) Esophageal cancer: an updated surveillance epidemiology and end results database analysis. World J Oncol 11(2):55–64. https://doi.org/10.14740/wjon1254

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Kernstine KH, DeArmond DT, Karimi M, Van Natta TL, Campos JH, Yoder MR et al (2004) The robotic, 2-stage, 3-field esophagolymphadenectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 127(6):1847–1849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mederos MA, de Virgilio MJ, Shenoy R et al (2021) Comparison of clinical outcomes of robot-assisted, video-assisted, and open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open 4(11):e2129228. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.29228 (PMID: 34724556)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Udagawa H, Ueno M, Shinohara H, Haruta S, Kaida S, Nakagawa M et al (2012) The importance of grouping of lymph node stations and rationale of three-field lymphoadenectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer. J Surg Oncol 106(6):742–747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yang Y, Zhang X, Li B, Li Z, Sun Y, Mao T et al (2019) Robotassisted 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 19(1):608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chao Y-K, Li Z-G, Wen Y-W, Kim D-J, Park S-Y, Chang Y-L et al (2019) Robotic-assisted esophagectomy vs video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (REVATE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 20(1):346

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The participating authors declare no sources of financial report that require acknowledgement.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Thessaly, Biopolis, 41110, Larissa, Greece

    Dimitrios E. Magouliotis

  2. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Thessaly, Biopolis, Larissa, Greece

    Prokopis-Andreas Zotos, Despoina Koukousaki & Kyriakos Spiliopoulos

  3. Department of Radiology, University of Thessaly, Biopolis, Larissa, Greece

    Maria P. Fergadi

  4. Department of Surgery, University of Thessaly, Biopolis, 41110, Larissa, Greece

    Dimitris Zacharoulis

  5. Department of Surgery, University of Thessaly, Biopolis, Larissa, Greece

    Alexandros Diamantis

  6. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary’s Hospital, London, W2 1NY, UK

    Thanos Athanasiou

Authors
  1. Dimitrios E. Magouliotis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prokopis-Andreas Zotos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria P. Fergadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Despoina Koukousaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dimitris Zacharoulis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alexandros Diamantis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kyriakos Spiliopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Thanos Athanasiou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DEM contributed to conception/design of the work, the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data, drafting, revising, and final approval of the manuscript. PAZ contributed to the design, acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data, revising, and final approval of the manuscript. MPF and DK contributed to the acquisition/analysis of data, drafting, revising, and final approval of the manuscript. DZ and AD contributed to the design, the acquisition/analysis of data, drafting, revising, and final approval of the manuscript. KS contributed to the analysis of data, revising, and final approval of the manuscript. TA contributed to the conception/design of the work, the interpretation of data, drafting, revising, and final approval of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dimitrios E. Magouliotis.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Does not apply.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor 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

Magouliotis, D.E., Zotos, PA., Fergadi, M.P. et al. Meta-analysis of robot-assisted versus video-assisted McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Updates Surg 74, 1501–1510 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-022-01343-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-022-01343-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation