Literature DB >> 31608939

Short- and mid-term outcomes of robotic versus thoraco-laparoscopic McKeown esophagectomy for squamous cell esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched study.

Y Yang1, X Zhang1, B Li1, R Hua1, Y Yang1, Y He1, B Ye1, X Guo1, Y Sun1, Z Li1.   

Abstract

Controversy exists on the advantages of robotic McKeown esophagectomy (RME) versus thoraco-laparoscopic McKeown esophagectomy (TLME). The aim was to evaluate the short- and mid-term outcomes of RME and TLME in the treatment of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). A consecutive series of 652 patients, 280 in RME and 372 in TLME, who underwent minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for ESCC at our department from November 2015 to June 2018 was analyzed. A propensity score-matched comparison with clinicopathological covariates was performed between the two groups. Complications were categorized based on the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) recommendation. To identify the recurrence, all patients with R0 resection were followed with a median follow-up period of 20.2 months (range 1-33 months). After propensity score matching, 271 patients were identified for each cohort. In the matched cohorts, two patients died within 90 days in TLME, whereas no patients died in RME. RME was associated with similar intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.895), but with shorter surgical duration (244.5 vs. 276.0 min, P < 0.001), shorter thoracic duration (85.0 vs. 102.9 min, P < 0.001) and lower thoracic conversions (0.7% vs. 5.9%, P = 0.001). In spite of the similar results on total and thoracic lymph nodes dissection, RME yielded more lymph nodes along recurrent laryngeal nerve (4.8 vs. 4.1, P = 0.012), as well as the higher incidence of recurrent nerve injury (29.2% vs. 15.1%, P < 0.001) when compared to TLME. Tumor recurrence occurred in 30 patients and was locoregional only in 9 (3.5%) patients, systemic only in 17 (6.7%) patients, and combined in 4 (1.6%) patients in RME, while in 26 patients and was locoregional only in 10 (10.6%) patients, systemic only in 7 (2.8%) patients, and combined in 9 (3.6%) patients in TLME. RME was associated with a lower rate of mediastinal lymph nodes recurrence (2.0% vs. 5.3%, P = 0.044). Overall and disease-free survival was not different between the two cohorts (P = 0.097 and P = 0.248, respectively). RME was shown to be a safe and oncologically effective approach with favorable short- and mid-term outcomes in the treatment of patients with ESCC.
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  esophageal cancer; minimally invasive esophagectomy; outcomes; robotic surgeries

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31608939     DOI: 10.1093/dote/doz080

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Esophagus        ISSN: 1120-8694            Impact factor:   3.429


  9 in total

Review 1.  Advanced Robotic Surgery: Liver, Pancreas, and Esophagus - The State of the Art?

Authors:  Pasquale Scognamiglio; Björn-Ole Stüben; Asmus Heumann; Jun Li; Jakob R Izbicki; Daniel Perez; Matthias Reeh
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2021-11-12

2.  Clinical Effect and Postoperative Pain of Laparo-Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy in Patients with Esophageal Cancer.

Authors:  Yue Yu; Yun Han
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2022-06-26       Impact factor: 2.650

3.  Robotic gastric mobilization in robotic minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Authors:  Shigeru Tsunoda; Kazutaka Obama; Tatsuto Nishigori; Shigeo Hisamori; Yoshiharu Sakai
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 4.  Essential Updates 2018/2019: Essential Updates for esophageal cancer surgery.

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

5.  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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted, Video-Assisted, and Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michael A Mederos; Michael J de Virgilio; Rivfka Shenoy; Linda Ye; Paul A Toste; Selene S Mak; Marika S Booth; Meron M Begashaw; Mark Wilson; William Gunnar; Paul G Shekelle; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons; Mark D Girgis
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-11-01
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.