Literature DB >> 30843161

Early Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Versus Thoracoscopic-Assisted Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.

Yajie Zhang1, Yu Han1, Qinyi Gan1, Jie Xiang1, Runsen Jin1, Kai Chen1, Jiaming Che1, Junbiao Hang1, Hecheng Li2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Both robot-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (RAILE) and conventional thoracoscopic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (TAILE) are minimally invasive surgical techniques for the treatment of middle and distal esophageal cancer. However, no research studies comparing early outcomes between RAILE and TAILE have been reported.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was made of 184 patients, 76 in the RAILE group and 108 in the TAILE group, who underwent minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy between December 2014 and June 2018. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed between the two groups based on demographics, comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor location, tumor size, and pathological stage. Perioperative outcomes were compared.
RESULTS: Two conversions to thoracotomy occurred in the RAILE group. There was no 30-day in either group. Sixty-six matched pairs were identified for each group. Within the propensity score-matched cohorts, the operative time in the RAILE group was significantly longer than that in the TAILE group (302.0 ± 62.9 vs. 274.7 ± 38.0 min, P = 0.004). There was no significant difference in the blood loss [200.0 ml (interquartile range [IQR], 100.0-262.5 ml) vs. 200.0 ml (150.0-245.0 ml), P = 0.100], rates of overall complications (28.8 vs. 24.2%, P = 0.554), length of stay [9.0 days (IQR 8.0-12.3 days) vs. 9.0 days (IQR 8.0-11.3 days), P = 0.517], the number of total dissected lymph nodes (19.2 ± 9.2 vs. 19.3 ± 9.5, P = 0.955), and detailed categories of lymph nodes.
CONCLUSIONS: RAILE demonstrated comparable early outcomes compared with TAILE and should be considered as an alternative minimally invasive option for treating esophageal cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30843161     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-019-07273-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  16 in total

Review 1.  Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: past, present and future.

Authors:  Gijsbert I van Boxel; B Feike Kingma; Frank J Voskens; Jelle P Ruurda; Richard van Hillegersberg
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  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

3.  Using the da Vinci X® - System for Esophageal Surgery.

Authors:  Juri Bergmann; Barbara Lehmann-Dorl; Lars Witt; Heiko Aselmann
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2022 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 1.789

4.  Pretreatment-assisted robot intrathoracic layered anastomosis: our exploration in Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.

Authors:  Zhi-Jie Xu; Ze-Guo Zhuo; Tie-Niu Song; Gang Li; Gu-Ha Alai; Xu Shen; Peng Yao; Yi-Dan Lin
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2021-07       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 5.  Essential Updates 2018/2019: Essential Updates for esophageal cancer surgery.

Authors:  Yasuyuki Seto
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol Surg       Date:  2020-02-18

6.  Lymph node dissection around left recurrent laryngeal nerve: robot-assisted vs. video-assisted McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Xiaofeng Duan; Jie Yue; Chuangui Chen; Lei Gong; Zhao Ma; Xiaobin Shang; Zhentao Yu; Hongjing Jiang
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-10-26       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Propensity matched analysis of short term oncological and perioperative outcomes following robotic and thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy for carcinoma esophagus- the first Indian experience.

Authors:  Shankar Balasubramanian; Bhushan Chittawadagi; Shivanshu Misra; Parthasarathi Ramakrishnan; Palanivelu Chinnusamy
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-02-20

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

Authors:  Chao Zheng; Xiao-Kun Li; Chi Zhang; Hai Zhou; Sai-Guang Ji; Ji-Hong Zhong; Yang Xu; Zhuang-Zhuang Cong; Gao-Ming Wang; Wen-Jie Wu; Yi Shen
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 2.895

9.  Evolution of Esophagectomy for Cancer Over 30 Years: Changes in Presentation, Management and Outcomes.

Authors:  S Michael Griffin; Rhys Jones; Sivesh Kathir Kamarajah; Maziar Navidi; Shajahan Wahed; Arul Immanuel; Nick Hayes; Alexander W Phillips
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-10-18       Impact factor: 5.344

10.  [Surgical treatment of esophageal cancer-Indicators for quality in diagnostics and treatment].

Authors:  Jens Hoeppner; Patrick Sven Plum; Heinz Buhr; Ines Gockel; Dietmar Lorenz; Michael Ghadimi; Christiane Bruns
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2021-04       Impact factor: 0.955

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.