Literature DB >> 30312615

Does the Approach Matter? Comparing Survival in Robotic, Minimally Invasive, and Open Esophagectomies.

Fernando Espinoza-Mercado1, Taryne A Imai1, Jerald D Borgella1, Ariella Sarkissian1, Derek Serna-Gallegos2, Rodrigo F Alban1, Harmik J Soukiasian3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to determine how surgical approach impacts overall survival and postoperative outcomes when comparing robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE), minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), and open esophagectomy (OE).
METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients diagnosed with pathologic Stage 0 to III esophageal cancer from 2010 to 2015. Primary outcome measures evaluated were length of stay, 30-day unplanned readmissions, mortality rates at 30 and 90 days, and overall survival rates. The surgical cohorts underwent 1:1 propensity score matching, and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were compared by surgical approach. Cox proportional hazards regression was utilized to estimate factors associated with overall survival.
RESULTS: Of 5,553 patients that met criteria, 28.4% were MIE, 7.8% RAMIE, and 63.8% OE. From 2010 to 2015, an increasing trend was seen for both minimally invasive approaches, with MIE surpassing the number of OEs. Unplanned 30-day readmissions and 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were not significantly different between the different groups. Median length of stay was significantly shorter in MIE (9 [interquartile range (IQR), 8 to 14] days) and RAMIE (9 [IQR, 7 to 14] days), compared with OE (10 [IQR, 8 to 15] days; p < 0.001). MIE and RAMIE had comparable survival rates compared with OE, with no significant differences in median overall survival estimates after propensity score matching (log-rank p = 0.603), with a trend for increased survival in MIE (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 1.06; p = 0.530) and RAMIE (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.95; p = 0.012). Both minimally invasive approaches had a significantly higher median lymph node counts (MIE: 15 [IQR, 9 to 22]; RAMIE: 17 [IQR, 11 to 24]; OE: 13 [IQR, 8 to 20]), which may highlight important differences in postoperative upstaging.
CONCLUSIONS: Trends in MIE use is surpassing the open approach. Minimally invasive approaches are becoming the preferred approach, with noninferior long-term results compared with OEs. A significantly higher lymph node yield was seen for RAMIE and MIE.
Copyright © 2019 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30312615     DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.08.039

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg        ISSN: 0003-4975            Impact factor:   4.330


  13 in total

1.  Lower Incidence of Postoperative Pulmonary Complications Following Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: Propensity Score-Matched Comparison to Conventional Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy.

Authors:  Shigeru Tsunoda; Kazutaka Obama; Shigeo Hisamori; Tatsuto Nishigori; Ryosuke Okamura; Hisatsugu Maekawa; Yoshiharu Sakai
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-09-05       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 2.  Why pay more for robot in esophageal cancer surgery?

Authors:  Fabrizio Rebecchi; Elettra Ugliono; Marco Ettore Allaix; Mario Morino
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2022-08-11

Review 3.  Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Stepan M Esagian; Ioannis A Ziogas; Konstantinos Skarentzos; Ioannis Katsaros; Georgios Tsoulfas; Daniela Molena; Michalis V Karamouzis; Ioannis Rouvelas; Magnus Nilsson; Dimitrios Schizas
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-29       Impact factor: 6.575

4.  Simple technique of azygos arch division and retraction for minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Authors:  Shigeru Tsunoda; Kazutaka Obama; Shigeo Hisamori; Kyoichi Hashimoto; Tatsuto Nishigori; Yoshiharu Sakai
Journal:  Esophagus       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 4.230

Review 5.  The modern approach to esophagectomy-review of the shift towards minimally invasive surgery.

Authors:  Daniel P Dolan; Scott J Swanson
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-05

6.  Robotic-assisted single-incision gastric mobilization for minimally invasive oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: preliminary results.

Authors:  Yu-Han Huang; Ke-Cheng Chen; Sian-Han Lin; Pei-Ming Huang; Pei-Wen Yang; Jang-Ming Lee
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2020-08-01       Impact factor: 4.191

7.  Commentary: Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: Unless you have tried it, don't knock it!

Authors:  Matthew R Egyud; Shawn S Groth
Journal:  JTCVS Tech       Date:  2021-08-08

8.  Functional Reconstruction of Forehead and Midface Deficits Using the Endoscopic Technique and Bio-Absorbable Implants.

Authors:  Jared Johnson; Houmehr Hojjat; Michael T Chung; Khashayar Arianpour; Hani Rayess; Robert Eckert; Michael Carron
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2020-02-18       Impact factor: 0.947

9.  Efficacy of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy vs open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jiao Yang; Ling Chen; Ke Ge; Jian-Le Yang
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2019-11-15

10.  Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hao Chen; Yiyang Liu; Hao Peng; Rongchun Wang; Kang Wang; Demin Li
Journal:  Transl Cancer Res       Date:  2021-11       Impact factor: 1.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.