Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic–thoracoscopic technique. Systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundEvidence comparing conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (CMIE) via laparoscopy and thoracoscopy with robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is scarce. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare surgical outcomes after CMIE and RAMIE with an intrathoracic anastomosis. MethodsA systematic literature search was performed to identify original articles analyzing outcomes after CMIE and RAMIE. Main surgical outcomes included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, anastomotic leak rates, pneumonia, overall morbidity, length of stay (LOS), and 30-day mortality. Oncologic outcomes included lymph node yield and R0 resections rates. A meta-analysis of proportions and linear regression models were used to assess the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes. ResultsA total of 6,249 patients were included for analysis; 5,275 (84%) underwent CMIE and 974 (16%) RAMIE. Robotic esophagectomy had longer operative time and less intraoperative blood loss. Anastomotic leakage rates were similar with both approaches. Patients undergoing RAMIE had significantly lower rates of postoperative pneumonia (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35–0.61, P < .0001) and overall morbidity (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58–0.79, P < .0001). Median LOS was similar in both procedures (RAMIE: 12.1 versus CMIE: 11.9 days, P = .64). Similar mortality rates were found after RAMIE and CMIE (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34–1.38, P = .29). Lymph node yield was similar in both procedures, but RAMIE was associated with higher rates of R0 resection (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.53–5.26, P < .001). ConclusionPatients undergoing robotic esophagectomy have less intraoperative blood loss, lower rates of postoperative pneumonia, reduced overall morbidity, and higher rates of R0 resections, as compared with those undergoing a laparoscopic-thoracoscopic esophageal resection.