Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Group Research Articles

Long-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus minimally invasive esophagectomy in patients with thoracic esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched study

BackgroundRecently, robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has gained popularity worldwide. Some studies have compared the long-term results of RAMIE and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). However, there are no reports on the long-term outcomes of RAMIE in Japan. This study compared the long-term outcomes of RAMIE and MIE.MethodsThis retrospective study included 86 patients with thoracic esophageal cancer who underwent RAMIE or MIE at our hospital from June 2010 to December 2016. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed, incorporating co-variables such as confounders or risk factors derived from the literature and clinical practice. These variables included age, sex, body mass index, alcohol consumption, smoking history, American Society of Anesthesiologists stage, comorbidities, tumor location, histology, clinical TNM stage, and preoperative therapy. The primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints were 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence rates.ResultsBefore PSM, the RAMIE group had a longer operation time (min) than the MIE group (P = 0.019). RAMIE also exhibited significantly lower blood loss volume (mL) (P < 0.001) and fewer three-field lymph node dissections (P = 0.028). Postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo: CD ≥ 2) were significantly lower in the RAMIE group (P = 0.04), and postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter than the MIE group (P < 0.001). After PSM, the RAMIE and MIE groups consisted of 26 patients each. Blood loss volume was significantly smaller (P = 0.012), postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo ≥ 2) were significantly lower (P = 0.021), and postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter (P < 0.001) in the RAMIE group than those in the MIE group. The median observation period was 63 months. The 5-year OS rates were 73.1% and 80.8% in the RAMIE and MIE groups, respectively (P = 0.360); the 5-year DFS rates were 76.9% and 76.9% in the RAMIE and MIE groups, respectively (P = 0.749). Six of 26 patients (23.1%) in each group experienced recurrence, with a median recurrence period of 41.5 months in the RAMIE group and 22.5 months in the MIE group.ConclusionsCompared with MIE, RAMIE led to no differences in long-term results, suggesting that RAMIE is a comparable technique.

Robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Esophagectomy is the gold standard treatment for resectable esophageal cancer; however, there is insufficient evidence to indicate potential advantages over standard minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in treating thoracic esophageal cancer. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) bridges the gap between open and minimally invasive surgery. In this single-center retrospective review, we compare the clinical outcomes of EC patients treated with MIE and RAMIE. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent surgery at Qilu Hospital between August 2020 and August 2022, including 159 patients who underwent MIE and 35 patients who received RAMIE. The intraoperative, postoperative, and preoperative patient characteristics in both groups were evaluated. Except for height, the MIE and RAMIE groups showed no significant differences in preoperative features (P>0.05). Further, there were no significant differences in intraoperative indices, including TNM stage of the resected tumor, tumor tissue type, or ASA score, between the two groups. However, statistically significant differences were found in some factors; the RAMIE group had a shorter operative time, less intraoperative bleeding, and more lymph nodes removed compared to the MIE group. Patients in the RAMIE group reported less discomfort and greater chest drainage on the first postoperative day than patients in the MIE group; however, there were no differences in other features between the two datasets. By comparing the clinical characteristics and outcomes of RAMIE with MIE, this study verified the feasibility and safety of RAMIE for esophageal cancer. Overall, RAMIE resulted in more complete lymph node clearance, shorter operating time, reduced surgical hemorrhage, reduced postoperative discomfort, and chest drainage alleviation in patients. To investigate the function of RAMIE in esophageal cancer, we propose undertaking a future clinical trial with long-term follow-up to analyze tumor clearance, recurrence, and survival after RAMIE.

Hybrid laparoscopic versus fully robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: an international propensity-score matched analysis of perioperative outcome

BackgroundCurrently, little is known regarding the optimal technique for the abdominal phase of RAMIE. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in both the abdominal and thoracic phase (full RAMIE) compared to laparoscopy during the abdominal phase (hybrid laparoscopic RAMIE).MethodsThis retrospective propensity-score matched analysis of the International Upper Gastrointestinal International Robotic Association (UGIRA) database included 807 RAMIE procedures with intrathoracic anastomosis between 2017 and 2021 from 23 centers.ResultsAfter propensity-score matching, 296 hybrid laparoscopic RAMIE patients were compared to 296 full RAMIE patients. Both groups were equal regarding intraoperative blood loss (median 200 ml versus 197 ml, p = 0.6967), operational time (mean 430.3 min versus 417.7 min, p = 0.1032), conversion rate during abdominal phase (2.4% versus 1.7%, p = 0.560), radical resection (R0) rate (95.6% versus 96.3%, p = 0.8526) and total lymph node yield (mean 30.4 versus 29.5, p = 0.3834). The hybrid laparoscopic RAMIE group showed higher rates of anastomotic leakage (28.0% versus 16.6%, p = 0.001) and Clavien Dindo grade 3a or higher (45.3% versus 26.0%, p < 0.001). The length of stay on intensive care unit (median 3 days versus 2 days, p = 0.0005) and in-hospital (median 15 days versus 12 days, p < 0.0001) were longer for the hybrid laparoscopic RAMIE group.ConclusionsHybrid laparoscopic RAMIE and full RAMIE were oncologically equivalent with a potential decrease of postoperative complications and shorter (intensive care) stay after full RAMIE.

Will robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy improve patient outcomes compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy?

Aim: To determine if introducing a standardized minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) to robot-assisted MIE (RAMIE) improves the short-term patient outcomes. Methods: A total of 292 patients with esophageal cancer underwent thoracic esophagectomy [MIE (n = 208); RAMIE (n = 84)] at Aichi Cancer Center Hospital between January 2019 and August 2022. The cumulative sum (CUSUM) method was used to analyze the learning curve for RAMIE. The MIE and RAMIE surgical and postoperative outcomes were also analyzed retrospectively. Propensity score matching was used to compensate for the selection bias. Results: The CUSUM plot of the console time reached a plateau in the 29th case and began to decrease in the 43rd case. Therefore, we defined phase I (introductory phase) up to the 28th case, phase II from the 29th - 42nd case, and phase III from the 43rd case onward. The median thoracic operative time was significantly longer in the RAMIE group than the MIE group in phase I (P &lt; 0.001); however, the median RAMIE console time was 227.5, 212, and 182 min in phases I-III, respectively, compared to a median MIE thoracic operative time of 232 min. The incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) palsy was significantly less after phase II for RAMIE (12.5%) compared to MIE (25%; P = 0.04). The incidence of RLN palsy was also decreased in phases II and III for RAMIE after matching (13%; P = 0.04). Conclusion: Standardization of RAMIE may decrease the incidence of RLN palsy in patients compared to MIE.

Robotic Esophagectomy Compared With Open Esophagectomy Reduces Sarcopenia within the First Postoperative Year: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

IntroductionSarcopenia is a known risk factor for adverse outcomes after esophageal cancer (EC) surgery. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) offers numerous advantages, including reduced morbidity and mortality. However, no evidence exists to date comparing the development of sarcopenia after RAMIE and open esophagectomy (OE). The objective was to evaluate whether the development of sarcopenia within the first postoperative year after esophagectomy is associated with the surgical approach: RAMIE versus OE. MethodsA total of 168 patients with EC were analyzed who either underwent total robotic or fully open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in a propensity score-matched analysis. Sarcopenia was assessed using the skeletal muscle index (cm2/m2) and psoas muscle thickness per height (mm/m) on axial computed tomography scans during the first postoperative year; in total 540 computed tomography scans were evaluated. ResultsAfter 1-to-1 propensity score matching for confounders, 67 patients were allocated to RAMIE and OE groups, respectively. Skeletal muscle index in the OE group was significantly lower compared with the RAMIE group at the third (43.2 ± 7.6 cm2/m2 versus 49.1 ± 6.9 cm2/m2, p = 0.001), sixth (42.7 ± 7.8 cm2/m2 versus 51.5 ± 8.2 cm2/m2, p < 0.001) and ninth (43.0 ± 7.0 cm2/m2 versus 49.9 ± 6.6 cm2/m2, p = 0.015) postoperative month. Similar results were recorded for psoas muscle thickness per height. ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this study is the first to suggest a substantial benefit of RAMIE compared with open esophagectomy in terms of postoperative sarcopenia. These results add further evidence to support the implementation of the robotic approach in multimodal therapy of EC.

254. TODAY’S ISSUES IN ROBOT-ASSISTED ESOPHAGECTOMY

Abstract Recently, effectiveness of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been reported however, there are some issues specific to RAMIE which may lead to major complications. The issues include 1) interference with the right shoulder, 2) compression of vertebral bodies and blood vessels, 3) energy devices, and 4) education to young surgeons. In this study, we evaluated the short-term outcome of RAMIE in our department, and show the ideas for improving those issues. For 1), the assistant gives instructions to the surgeon, and uses a protector on right shoulder. In 2), port arrangement depending on the cases and switching the camera port is useful. 3) Because those devices are still under developing, careful procedure is required while using energy device, 4) Double console and extra thoracoscopic camera is useful in operating under the education. We conducted a comparative study of 81 cases of RAMIE performed at our institution from 2014 to January 2022 and 392 cases of prone thoracoscopic esophagectomy performed at about the same time, to evaluate the short-term outcomes including complications. RAMIE showed an increase in thoracic operation time (median 286 min vs 260 min), but amount of thoracic bleeding tended to be smaller (median 13 mL vs 19 mL). Recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (G1) was about 40%, and pneumonia was about 18%, which was about the same. One case encountered to in-hospital death from RAMIE group by aspiration pneumonia and one cardiac tamponade by thoracoscopic surgery, respectively, Also, there was no difference in short-term outcomes between experienced and non-experienced surgeons, except operation time. It is difficult to educate young surgeons who cannot afford to pay attention to the surroundings because there is a possibility that the surrounding organs will be damaged without resistance. Therefore, experienced surgeon should observe and understand the situation using double console or an additional scope. Also, many other knacks and tricks are important to reduce the complications arises from robotic surgery.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) vs. hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: propensity score matched short-term outcome analysis of a European high-volume center

IntroductionTransthoracic esophagectomy is a highly complex and sophisticated procedure with high morbidity rates and a significant mortality. Surgical access has consistently become less invasive, transitioning from open esophagectomy to hybrid esophagectomy (HE) then to totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), and most recently to robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE), with each step demonstrating improved patient outcomes. Aim of this study with more than 600 patients is to complete a propensity-score matched comparison of postoperative short-term outcomes after highly standardized RAMIE vs. HE in a European high volume center.Patients and MethodsSix hundred and eleven patients that underwent transthoracic Ivor–Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between May 2016 and May 2021 were included in the study. In January 2019, we implemented an updated robotic standardized anastomotic technique using a circular stapler and ICG (indocyanine green) for RAMIE cases. Data were retrospectively analyzed from a prospectively maintained IRB-approved database. Outcomes of patients undergoing standardized RAMIE from January 2019 to May 2021 were compared to our overall cohort from May 2016–April 2021 (HE) after a propensity-score matching analysis was performed.ResultsSix hundred and eleven patients were analyzed. 107 patients underwent RAMIE. Of these, a total of 76 patients underwent a robotic thoracic reconstruction using the updated standardized circular stapled anastomosis (RAMIE group). A total of 535 patients underwent HE (Hybrid group). Seventy patients were propensity-score matched in each group and analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics. RAMIE patients had a significantly shorter ICU stay (p = 0.0218). Significantly more patients had no postoperative complications (Clavien Dindo 0) in the RAMIE group [47.1% vs. 27.1% in the HE group (p = 0.0225)]. No difference was seen in lymph node yield and R0 resection rates. Anastomotic leakage rates when matched were 14.3% in the hybrid group vs. 4.3% in the RAMIE group (p = 0.07).ConclusionOur analysis confirms the safety and feasibility of RAMIE and HE in a large cohort after propensity score matching. A regular postoperative course (Clavien–Dindo 0) and a shorter ICU stay were seen significantly more often after RAMIE compared to HE. Furthermore it shows that both procedures provide excellent short-term oncologic outcomes, regarding lymph node harvest and R0 resection rates. A randomized controlled trial comparing RAMIE and HE is still pending and will hopefully contribute to ongoing discussions.

Propensity-Matched Analysis of the Short-Term Outcome of Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Conventional Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy in Thoracic Esophageal Cancer.

In this matched-cohort study, we investigated the short-term outcome of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) compared with conventional minimally invasive thoracoscopic esophagectomy (MIE) in esophageal cancer patients. One hundred eighty-nine patients with thoracic esophageal cancer scheduled to undergo thoracic esophagectomy between 2020 and 2021 were assigned to either RAMIE or MIE. Then, we retrospectively evaluated the postoperative surgical complications between two groups in a propensity-matched analyzation. Based on the propensity-matched score, 50 patients who underwent RAMIE or MIE were selected. Thoracic surgery time in RAMIE/MIE group were 233.1/173.3min (p < 0.01), respectively. No significant intergroup differences were observed regarding incisional anastomotic leakage (RAMIE group 4.0% vs. MIE group 6.0%) and pneumonia (RAMIE group 8.0% vs. MIE group 12.0%; p = 0.68). The respective incidences of recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis were 34.0 and 8.0% in the MIE and RAMIE groups, respectively (p < 0.01). In the matched cohort, no differences were observed between the groups in the success accomplishment of the clinical management pathway (RAMIE group 94.0% vs. MIE group 88.0%). Although patients who underwent RAMIE had longer operation times, the incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis was lower than with MIE. Further study in a prospective multi-institutional setting are required to confirm the superiority of RAMIE compared with MIE.

Strategiewechsel zur minimal-invasiven Ösophagektomie – Ergebnisse an einem zertifizierten Zentrum

HintergrundEs gibt Hinweise, dass die roboterassistierte minimal-invasive Ösophagektomie (RAMIE) die Morbidität im Vergleich zur konventionellen Operationstechnik verringern kann.Ziel der ArbeitEs erfolgte eine Vergleichsanalyse eines Single-Center-Strategiewechsels des Standards von offener Ösophagektomie zu RAMIE mit perioperativer, enteraler, selektiver Darmdekontamination (SDD).Material und MethodenPatienten- und Morbiditätsdaten nach elektiver RAMIE entsprechend dem neuen Standardmanagement zwischen Juli 2018 und September 2020 wurden retrospektiv mit einer historischen Kontrollkohorte nach offener Ösophagektomie zwischen Januar 2014 und Juni 2018 verglichen. Es erfolgte eine 1:1-Propensity-Score-Matching(PSM)-Analyse.ErgebnisseInsgesamt 75 Patienten konnten nach PSM in beiden Gruppen analysiert werden. Etwa zwei Drittel der Operationen erfolgte aufgrund eines Adenokarzinoms und ein Drittel bei Plattenepithelkarzinom. Im Median wurden 22 bzw. 21 Lymphknoten reseziert. Die intrathorakale Ösophagogastrostomie erfolgte in der RAMIE-Gruppe in 97 % mit einem Zirkularstapler mit ≥28 mm Durchmesser (offen: 25 mm in 90 % der Fälle). Die Operationszeit war länger (Median 490 vs. 339 min, p < 0,001), hingegen waren der Blutverlust (Median 300 vs. 500 ml, p < 0,001), die Anastomoseninsuffizienz- (8,0 % vs. 25,3 %, p = 0,004), Wundinfektions- (4,0 % vs. 17,3 %, p = 0,008) und pulmonale Komplikationsrate (29,3 % vs. 44,0 %, p = 0,045) sowie die mediane Krankenhausverweildauer (14 vs. 20 Tage, p < 0,001) und die 90-Tage-Mortalität signifikant geringer verglichen mit der offenen Kontrollkohorte (4,0 % vs. 13,3 %, p = 0,039).DiskussionEin konsequenter Wechsel des perioperativen Managements u. a. mit RAMIE und SDD kann zu einer stabilen Reduktion der Morbidität ohne Einschränkungen der onkologischen Radikalität führen.

Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy with extended lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer compared with video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: A single-center retrospective study.

The safety and feasibility of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) remain unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of RAMIE with extended lymphadenectomy and conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in order to investigate the safety and feasibility of RAMIE. A retrospective analysis of 87 patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy at our institution between April 2018 and March 2020 was made, assigning 22 in the RAMIE group and 65 in the MIE group. Short-term clinical outcomes and clinical baseline data were compared. The baseline characteristics were comparable. No significant difference in median thoracic phase blood loss and median number of dissected mediastinal lymph nodes were observed. The median operative time of thoracic approach was significantly longer in the RAMIE group than the MIE group (305 minutes [221-397] vs 227 minutes [133-365], P < .0001). With respect to postoperative complications such as recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade II) (RAMIE 4.6% vs MIE 17%, P=.11) and postoperative pneumonia (Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade III) (RAMIE 9% vs MIE 23%, P=.13), no significant difference was observed. The patients in the RAMIE group had a better postoperative swallowing function (P=.023) and were able to start oral food intake significantly earlier (P=.007). The median hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RAMIE group than in the MIE (23 days vs 35 days, P=.009). RAMIE with extended lymphadenectomy was safe and feasible for esophageal cancer and resulted in improved postoperative swallowing function and shorter postoperative hospital stay.

Comparison of short-term clinical outcomes between robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy and video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BackgroundThough robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is demonstrated to offer a better visualization and provide a fine dissection of the mediastinal structures to facilitate the complex thoracoscopic operation, the superiorities of RAMIE over MIE have not been well verified. The aim of this study was to explore the actual superiorities through comparing short-term results of RAMIE with that of MIE.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE and web of science databases were systematically searched up to September 1, 2020 for case-controlled studies that compared RAMIE with TLMIE.ResultsFourteen studies were identified, with a total of 2,887 patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer, including 1,435 patients subjected to RAMIE group and 1,452 patients subjected to MIE group. The operative time in RAMIE was still significantly longer than that in MIE group (OR =0.785; 95% CI, 0.618–0.952; P<0.001). The incidence of pneumonia was significantly lower in RAMIE group compared with MIE group (OR =0.677; 95% CI, 0.468–0.979; P=0.038).ConclusionsRAMIE has the superiorities over MIE in short-term outcomes in terms of pneumonia and vocal cord palsy. Therefore, RAMIE could be considered as a standard treatment for patients with esophageal cancer.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: long-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial.

Initial results of the ROBOT, which randomized between robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) and open transthoracic esophagectomy (OTE), showed significantly better short-term postoperative outcomes in favor of RAMIE. However, it is not yet clarified if RAMIE is equivalent to OTE regarding long-term outcomes. The aim of this study was to report the long-term oncological results of the ROBOT trial in terms of survival and disease-free survival. This study is a follow-up study of the ROBOT trial, which was a randomized controlled trial comparing RAMIE to OTE in 112 patients with intrathoracic esophageal cancer. Both the trial protocol and short-term results were previously published. The primary outcome of the current study was 5-year overall survival. Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival and recurrence patterns. Analysis was by intention to treat. During the recruitment period, 109 patients were included in the survival analysis (RAMIE n = 54, OTE n = 55). Majority of patients had clinical stage III or IV (RAMIE 63%, OTE 55%) and received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (80%). Median follow-up was 60months (range 31-60). The combined 5-year overall survival rates for RAMIE and OTE were 41% (95% CI 27-55) and 40% (95% CI 26-53), respectively (log rank test P = 0.827). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 42% (95% CI 28-55) in the RAMIE group and 43% (95% CI 29-57) in the OTE group (log rank test P = 0.749). Out of 104 patients, 57 (55%) developed recurrent disease detected at a median of 10months (range 0-56) after surgery. No statistically difference in recurrence rate nor recurrence pattern was observed between both groups. Overall survival and disease-free survival of RAMIE are comparable to OTE. These results continue to support the use of robotic surgery for esophageal cancer.

Initial introduction of robot-assisted, minimally invasive esophagectomy using the microanatomy-based concept in the upper mediastinum.

BackgroundWe have recently standardized upper mediastinal lymph node dissection (UMLND) using a microanatomy-based concept in thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position (TEPP), and introduced robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) using the same concept as in TEPP while aiming at solo surgery. The purpose of this study was to investigate the outcomes of RAMIE using the microanatomy-based concept in the initial introduction phase.MethodsWe have performed more than 500 TEPP procedures as minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). After performing about 400 cases of MIE, we established a microanatomy-based standardization of UMLND. In October 2018, we introduced RAMIE, and have performed 75 procedures in 20 months. Two groups were analyzed: a group after microanatomy-based standardization in TEPP (100 cases after completing 400 cases of TEPP) and a RAMIE group (75 cases). Finally, 51 paired cases were matched using a propensity score. Furthermore, the change in postoperative short-term outcome for RAMIE in the initial introduction phase was analyzed.ResultsAlthough there were no significant differences between the two groups in the number of upper mediastinal lymph nodes dissected, there was a significant decrease (P = 0.036) in intraoperative blood loss volume with RAMIE, representing a definite benefit for patients. The thoracoscopic operative time for RAMIE decreased by almost 100 min following less than 50 cases of experience, reaching the same level as that for recent TEPP, but with only one-tenth the operator experience. There were no significant differences in the total postoperative morbidity rate including the recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy rate.ConclusionRAMIE has been introduced safely and smoothly using the microanatomy-based concept established in TEPP.

Comparisons of short-term outcomes between robot-assisted and thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy with extended two-field lymph node dissection for resectable thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery has been identified as priori choice compared with open approaches in esophageal cancer surgery. With the developments in the Da Vinci robotic system, the robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been increasingly popular. However, whether RAMIE could be a better choice over thoraco-laparoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy (TLMIE) is unclear. The clinicopathological characteristics of patients who received RAMIE or TLMIE with modern two-field lymph node dissection in Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center between Jan 2016 to Jan 2018 were retrospectively retrieved. The 1:1 propensity score match analysis was performed to compare the short-term effectiveness and safety between the two groups. Two hundred and fifteen esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients received RAMIE (101 patients) or TLMIE (114 patients) were included in the analysis. After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 108 patients (54 pairs) who received RAMIE or TLMIE displayed no significant variance in baseline clinicopathological characteristics. No significant difference in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, number of resected lymph nodes, and R0 resection rates were observed between the matched groups. However, the recurrent laryngeal nerve protection was better in RAMIE group (P=0.021). Nevertheless, both the incidences of common postoperative complications and length of ICU (hospital) stay were similar in two groups. The average total (P=0.009) and daily (P=0.028) expenses of RAMIE were higher. In general, RAMIE could benefit patients by providing better recurrent laryngeal nerve protection. In order to promote the applications of RAMIE, more efforts should be made to reduce the costs by the social and medical insurance agencies.

Clinical utility of robot-assisted transthoracic esophagectomy in advanced esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy.

Although robot-assisted minimally-invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) surgeries are expanding clinically, few studies have reported patients with locally-advanced esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT). From 2013 to 2017, 219 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma underwent RAMIE and 35 of them received nCRT at our institution. During the period, 289 patients underwent conventional open esophagectomy (OE) and 111 patients underwent nCRT. We compared postoperative mortality and morbidity of RAMIE and OE patients after nCRT. In patients who received nCRT, the RAMIE and OE groups had similar operative time, estimated blood loss, early-period mortality, and recurrence rate (≤1 year) and both groups showed a high rate of complete resection. With respect to postoperative morbidities, such as anastomotic leakage, chylothorax, postoperative bleeding, and wound infection, only vasopressor use was significantly higher in the OE group (P<0.001). The RAMIE group had a lower, but not statistically significant, postoperative pneumonia incidence than the OE group (5.7% vs. 13.5%, P=0.341). In patients who received nCRT for locally-advanced esophageal cancer, RAMIE is safe and feasible with comparable postoperative mortality and morbidity to conventional OE. Patients with advanced-stage esophageal cancer who received nCRT may be surgical candidates for RAMIE.

PS01.220: COMPARISON OF SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES BETWEEN RAMIE AND VAMIE IN TREATMENT MIDDLE THORACIC ESOPHAGEAL CANCER

Abstract Background Whether robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has any advantages over video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE) remains controversial. In this study, we tried to compare the short-term outcomes of RAMIE with that of VAMIE in treating middle thoracic esophageal cancer from a single medical center. Methods Consecutive patients undergoing RAMIE or VAMIE for middle thoracic esophageal cancer from April 2016 to April 2017 were prospectively included for analysis. Baseline data and pathological findings as well as short-term outcomes of these two group (RAMIE group and VAMIE group) patients were collected and compared. A total of 84 patients (RAMIE group: 42 patients, VAMIE group: 42 patients) were included for analysis. Results The baseline characteristics between the two groups were comparable. RAMIE yielded significantly larger numbers of total dissected lymph nodes (21.9 and 17.8, respectively; P = 0.042) and right recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) lymph nodes (2.1 and 1.2, respectively; P = 0.033) as well as abdominal lymph nodes (10.8 and 7.7, respectively; P = 0.041) than VAMIE. Even though RAMIE may consume more overall operation time, it could significant decrease total blood loss compared to VAMIE (97 and 161 ml, respectively; P = 0.015). Postoperatively, no difference of the risk of major complications or hospital stay was observed between the two groups. Conclusion RAMIE had significant advantage of lymphadenectomy especially for dissecting RLN lymph nodes over VAMIE with comparable rate of postoperative complications. Further randomized controlled trials are badly needed to confirm and update our conclusions. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score matched analysis

BackgroundMinimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was shown to be effective in reducing the morbidity and was adopted increasingly. The robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) remains in the initial stage of application. This study evaluated its safety and feasibility by comparing short-term outcomes of RAMIE and video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE).MethodsBetween March 2016 and December 2017, 115 consecutive patients underwent RAMIE or VAMIE at our institute. The baseline characteristics, pathological data and short-term outcomes of these two group patients were collected and compared. RAMIE patients were propensity score matched with VAMIE patients for a more accurate comparison.ResultsMatching based on propensity scores produced 27 patients in each group. After propensity score matching (PSM), the baseline characteristics between the two groups were comparable. The operation time in RAMIE group was significantly longer than that in VAMIE group (349 and 294 min, respectively; P < 0.001). The blood loss volume in RAMIE group was less than that in VAMIE group (119 and 158 ml, respectively), but with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.062). There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to the mean number of dissected lymph nodes (20 and 19, respectively; P = 0.420), postoperative hospital stay (13.8 and 12.7 days, respectively; P = 0.548), the rate of overall complications (37.0 and 33.3%, respectively; P = 0.776) and the rates of detailed complications between the two groups.ConclusionsThe short-term outcomes of RAMIE is comparable to VAMIE, demonstrating safety and feasibility of RAMIE.