Literature DB >> 27001870

Contribution of robotics to minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Ismael Diez Del Val1, Carlos Loureiro Gonzalez2, Santiago Larburu Etxaniz3, Julen Barrenetxea Asua2, Saioa Leturio Fernandez4, Sandra Ruiz Carballo4, Eider Etxebarria Beitia4, Patricia Perez de Villarreal4, Lorena Hierro-Olabarria4, Jose Esteban Bilbao Axpe2, Jaime Jesus Mendez Martin4.   

Abstract

Robot-assisted surgery has the advantages of a three-dimensional view, versatility of instruments and better ergonomics. It allows fine dissection and difficult anastomoses in deep fields. Based on our experience, we try to define what are the main contributions of robotics to minimally invasive esophagectomy. From December 2009 to July 2012, we performed 24 minimally invasive esophagectomies (9 transhiatal, 5 Ivor-Lewis and 10 three-field), 16 of them robotically (8, 5 and 3, respectively). Eighteen patients (18/24 = 75 %) received neoadjuvant therapy. Nine patients (9/24 = 37.5 %) had symptomatic complications: 4 anastomotic leaks treated conservatively, one staple failure of the gastric plasty needing reoperation, one biliary peritonitis secondary to a gangrenous cholecystitis, one intrathoracic gastric migration after the only nonresectable case, one chylothorax and one patient with major cardiopulmonary complications. The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 12 ± 7. Median length of stay was 14 ± 13.5 days. Thirty-day mortality was nil. Complications were not related to the robot itself but to the complexity of both the technique and the patient. Although we found no advantages for the use of robotics during threefield minimally invasive esophagectomy, robotic mediastinal dissection during transhiatal esophagectomy can be performed safely under direct vision. Moreover, hand-sewn robotic-assisted technique in the prone position is promising and maybe the simplest way to carry out thoracic anastomosis during Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Esophagectomy; Esophagus; Ivor-Lewis; Minimally invasive esophagectomy; Robotic surgery; Transhiatal esophagectomy

Year:  2013        PMID: 27001870     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-012-0391-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  35 in total

Review 1.  Methods of esophagogastric anastomoses following esophagectomy for cancer: A systematic review.

Authors:  Roger H Kim; Kazuaki Takabe
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-05-01       Impact factor: 3.454

Review 2.  Management of esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Matthew J Schuchert; James D Luketich; Rodney J Landreneau
Journal:  Curr Probl Surg       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 1.909

3.  Robotic-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy.

Authors:  Carsten N Gutt; Vasile V Bintintan; Jörg Köninger; Beat P Müller-Stich; Michael Reiter; Markus W Büchler
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2006-06-22       Impact factor: 3.445

4.  Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Barkun; Jeffrey K Aronson; Liane S Feldman; Guy J Maddern; Steven M Strasberg; Douglas G Altman; Jeffrey S Barkun; Jane M Blazeby; Isabell C Boutron; W Bruce Campbell; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Jonathan A Cook; Patrick L Ergina; David R Flum; Paul Glasziou; John C Marshall; Peter McCulloch; Jon Nicholl; Bournaby C Reeves; Christoph M Seiler; Jonathan L Meakins; Deborah Ashby; Nick Black; John Bunker; Martin Burton; Marion Campbell; Kalipso Chalkidou; Iain Chalmers; Marc de Leval; Jon Deeks; Adrian Grant; Muir Gray; Roger Greenhalgh; Milos Jenicek; Sean Kehoe; Richard Lilford; Peter Littlejohns; Yoon Loke; Rajan Madhock; Kim McPherson; Peter Rothwell; Bill Summerskill; David Taggart; Parris Tekkis; Matthew Thompson; Tom Treasure; Ulrich Trohler; Jan Vandenbroucke
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2009-09-26       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy: meta-analysis of outcomes.

Authors:  George Sgourakis; Ines Gockel; Arnold Radtke; Thomas J Musholt; Stephan Timm; Andreas Rink; Achilleas Tsiamis; Constantine Karaliotas; Hauke Lang
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2010-02-26       Impact factor: 3.199

6.  Thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: feasibility and safety of robotic assistance in the prone position.

Authors:  Dae Joon Kim; Woo Jin Hyung; Chang Young Lee; Jin-Gu Lee; Seok Jin Haam; In-Kyu Park; Kyung Young Chung
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2009-07-29       Impact factor: 5.209

7.  Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Surya S A Y Biere; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Kirsten W Maas; Luigi Bonavina; Camiel Rosman; Josep Roig Garcia; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Jean H G Klinkenbijl; Markus W Hollmann; Elly S M de Lange; H Jaap Bonjer; Donald L van der Peet; Miguel A Cuesta
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Transcervical gastric tube drainage facilitates patient mobility and reduces the risk of pulmonary complications after esophagectomy.

Authors:  Matthew J Schuchert; Brian L Pettiford; Joshua P Landreneau; Jonathon Waxman; Arman Kilic; Ricardo S Santos; Michael S Kent; Amgad El-Sherif; Ghulam Abbas; James D Luketich; Rodney J Landreneau
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2008-06-17       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 9.  Hand-sewn versus mechanical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michitaka Honda; Akira Kuriyama; Hisashi Noma; Souya Nunobe; Toshi A Furukawa
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kamal Nagpal; Kamran Ahmed; Amit Vats; Danny Yakoub; David James; Hutan Ashrafian; Ara Darzi; Krishna Moorthy; Thanos Athanasiou
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-01-28       Impact factor: 4.584

View more
  3 in total

1.  Robot-assisted esophagogastric reconstruction in minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

Authors:  Zihao Wang; Hanlu Zhang; Fuqiang Wang; Yun Wang
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Intrathoracic side-to-side esophagogastrostomy with a linear stapler and barbed suture in robot-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

Authors:  Fuqiang Wang; Hanlu Zhang; Yu Zheng; Zihao Wang; Yingcai Geng; Yun Wang
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2019-09-18       Impact factor: 3.454

3.  Technical details for a robot-assisted hand-sewn esophago-gastric anastomosis during minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

Authors:  A Peri; N Furbetta; J Viganò; L Pugliese; G Di Franco; F S Latteri; N Mineo; F C Bruno; V Gallo; L Morelli; A Pietrabissa
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2021-09-09       Impact factor: 4.584

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.