Comparison of robotic-assisted and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomies in 321 patients of a single center: A case-matched analysis

Abstract

Abstract Objective We introduced robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomies (rob-E) using the da Vinci Xi in Oct. 2015. Prior to that, esophagectomies were performed as open Ivor Lewis (open-E) procedures. Aim of this study is to evaluate the safety of rob-E in comparison to open-E procedures regarding perioperative outcomes. Methods Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data between Feb. 1999 and Dec. 2020. A case-matched analysis, matching open-E to rob-E in a 1:1 manner, was conducted. Cases were matched regarding age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, histological type of tumor, tumor location and stage. Results In the study period 321 patients underwent an esophagectomy. 76 received rob-E and 245 open-E. After matching the cases the comparison of preoperative patient and tumor characteristics revealed no differences between the rob-E and open-E group regarding age at time of operation with a median of 69.5 (35-83) respectively 70 (46-88) years (p = 0.900), gender with 84.2% male in both groups (p = 1.000), ASA score with 68.4% ASA 3 or 4 in both groups (p = 1.000), percentage of tumor stage III of 53.9% respectively 57.9% (p = 0.707), and rate of neoadjuvant treatment of 82.9% in rob-E and 81.6% in open-E (p = 1.000). Conversion from rob-E to open-E was never necessary. For rob-E versus open-E no difference was found regarding overall morbidity with 69.7% versus 60.5% (p = 0.307), major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo > = 3b) with 11.8% versus 14.5% (p = 0.811), incidence of anastomotic insufficiency with 7.9% versus 5.3% (p = 0.745), rate of surgical reintervention with 5.3% versus 7.9% (p = 0.745), and mortality with 2.6% versus 3.9% (p = 1.000). Postoperative details showed no difference including a similar duration of hospitalization with a median of 20 (13-62) respectively 18.5 (13-52) days (p = 0.368) and number of harvested lymph nodes with a median of 24.5 (7-59) in rob-E and 23 (2-64) in open-E (p = 0.203). Conclusion The introduction of rob-E in our institution was safe, as perioperative morbidity and mortality did not differ from the previously performed open-E. Overall, the incidence of major morbidity and anastomotic insufficiency in rob-E and open-E show a satisfactory rate compared to previous reports in literature. Further studies with a larger cohort of rob-E are planned in order to draw more decisive conclusions.