Abstract

Radical lymph node dissection (LND) along the bilateral recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) is a surgically challenging procedure with a high rate of morbidity. Here, we assessed in a retrospective manner the adequacy of LND along the RLN performed with robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (RATE) versus video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (VATE) in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). This was a single-center, retrospective, propensity-matched study. ESCC patients who underwent McKeown esophagectomy and bilateral RLN LND with a minimally invasive approach were divided into two groups according to the use of robot-assisted surgery or not (RATE vs VATE, respectively). Using propensity score matching, 34 balanced matched pairs were identified. The number of dissected nodes as well as the rates of RLN palsy and perioperative complications served as the main outcome measures. No conversion to open thoracotomy occurred in either group. Intraoperative blood loss and the need of blood transfusions did not show significant intergroup differences. The mean number of dissected nodes was similar in the two study groups, the only exception being the left RLN area. Specifically, the mean number of nodes removed from this region was 5.32 in the RATE group and 3.38 in patients who received VATE (p=0.007). Notably, the RATE and VATE groups did not differ significantly with regard to rates of both RLN palsy (20.6 vs 29.4%, respectively, p=0.401) and pulmonary complications (5.9 vs 17.6%, respectively, p=0.259). Compared with VATE, RATE resulted in a higher lymph node yield along the left RLN without increasing morbidity.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.