Robotic Versus Conventional Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Meta-analysis.

Abstract

To give a comprehensive review of the literature comparing perioperative outcomes and long-term survival with robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) versus minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer. Curative minimally invasive surgical treatment for esophageal cancer includes RAMIE and conventional MIE. It remains controversial whether RAMIE is comparable to MIE. This review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021260963). A systematic search of databases was conducted. Perioperative outcomes and long-term survival were analyzed and subgroup analysis was conducted. Cumulative meta-analysis was performed to track therapeutic effectiveness. Eighteen studies were included and a total of 2932 patients (92.88% squamous cell carcinoma, 29.83% neoadjuvant therapy, and 38.93% stage III-IV), 1418 underwent RAMIE and 1514 underwent MIE, were analyzed. The number of total lymph nodes (LNs) [23.35 (95% CI: 21.41-25.29) vs 21.98 (95% CI: 20.31-23.65); mean difference (MD) = 1.18; 95% CI: 0.06-2.30; P =0.04], abdominal LNs [9.05 (95% CI: 8.16-9.94) vs 7.75 (95% CI: 6.62-8.88); MD = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.19-1.89; P =0.02] and LNs along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve [1.74 (95% CI: 1.04-2.43) vs 1.34 (95% CI: 0.32-2.35); MD = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.09-0.35; P <0.001] were significantly higher in the RAMIE group. RAMIE is associated with a lower incidence of pneumonia [9.61% (95% CI: 7.38%-11.84%) vs 14.74% (95% CI: 11.62%-18.15%); odds ratio = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.58-0.93; P =0.01]. Meanwhile, other perioperative outcomes, such as operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, 30/90-day mortality, and R0 resection, showed no significant difference between the two groups. Regarding long-term survival, the 3-year overall survival was similar in the two groups, whereas patients undergoing RAMIE had a higher rate of 3-year disease-free survival compared with the MIE group [77.98% (95% CI: 72.77%-82.43%) vs 70.65% (95% CI: 63.87%-77.00%); odds ratio = 1.42; 95% CI: 1.11-1.83; P =0.006]. A cumulative meta-analysis conducted for each outcome demonstrated relatively stable effects in the two groups. Analyses of each subgroup showed similar overall outcomes. RAMIE is a safe and feasible alternative to MIE in the treatment of resectable esophageal cancer with comparable perioperative outcomes and seems to indicate a possible superiority in LNs dissection in the abdominal cavity, and LNs dissected along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve and 3-year disease-free survival in particular in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Further randomized studies are needed to better evaluate the long-term benefits of RAMIE compared with MIE.