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


Creative Commons License

Yüksel S., Topal U., Songür M. Z., İsmail Ç., Karaköse E., Ercan E., ...Daha Fazla

JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND THERAPEUTICS, cilt.0, sa.0, ss.1-7, 2023 (SCI-Expanded)

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 0 Sayı: 0
  • Basım Tarihi: 2023
  • Dergi Adı: JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND THERAPEUTICS
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, CAB Abstracts, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Veterinary Science Database
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.1-7
  • Çukurova Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

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.