| Literature DB >> 33170337 |
Yasuhiro Shirakawa1,2, Kazuhiro Noma3, Tomoyoshi Kunitomo3, Masashi Hashimoto3, Naoaki Maeda3, Shunsuke Tanabe3, Kazufumi Sakurama3, Toshiyoshi Fujiwara3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We 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.Entities:
Keywords: Esophageal cancer; Microanatomy; Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy; Thoracoscopic esophagectomy; Upper mediastinal lymph node dissection
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33170337 PMCID: PMC7654354 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-08154-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Surg Endosc ISSN: 0930-2794 Impact factor: 4.584
Fig. 1Flow chart for patient and control group selection. TEPP, Thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position; RAMIE, Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy; T4, Invasion of adjacent organs; UMLD, Upper mediastinal lymph node dissection; BMI, Body mass index
Fig. 2Detachment of the visceral sheath on the left side while preserving the visceral sheath and rotating the esophagus and trachea using the 4th arm holding a bale-shaped gauze
Fig. 3Pulling up the esophagus using an organ retractor both before and after the transection of the esophagus, which acts like a 5th arm of RAMIE. RAMIE, Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy
Fig. 4A, D, G, K Detachment of the esophagus together with the lymphatic chain from the trachea and aggregation of the lymphatic chain to the esophagus side. B, E, H, I, L, M Identification of the left recurrent laryngeal nerve and lymph node dissection around it using Maryland forceps or Pott’s scissors. C, F, J, N The final findings after completing the upper mediastinal lymph node dissection after the microanatomy-based standardization in RAMIE. RAMIE Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy
Patient characteristics before and after propensity matching
| Characteristics | Total cohort | Propensity score match cohort | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group after microanatomy-based standardization in TEPP ( | Group of RAMIE (66 cases) | Group after microanatomy-based standardization in TEPP ( | Group of RAMIE (51 cases) | |||
| Age, median [year (IQR)] | 67 (61–73) | 68 (59–73) | 0.600a | 67 (62–73) | 69 (60–74) | 0.728a |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male (%) | 74 (82.2) | 56 (84.8) | 0.664b | 44 (86.3) | 43 (84.3) | 0.780b |
| Female (%) | 16 (17.8) | 10 (15.2) | 7 (13.7) | 8 (15.7) | ||
| BMI, median [kg/m2 (IQR)] | 21.9 (20.2–23.4) | 21.8 (19.6–24.0) | 0.577a | 22.5 (19.9–23.3) | 21.4 (19.5–23.5) | 0.301a |
| Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (%) | 51 (56.7) | 30 (45.4) | 0.166b | 19 (37.3) | 26 (51.0) | 0.163b |
| Tumor location | ||||||
| Ce (%) | 6 (6.7) | 3 (4.6) | 0.016b | 3 (5.9) | 3 (5.9) | 0.764b |
| Ut (%) | 20 (22.2) | 13 (19.7) | 7 (13.7) | 12 (23.5) | ||
| Mt (%) | 40 (44.4) | 22 (33.3) | 26 (51.0) | 21 (41.2) | ||
| Lt (%) | 20 (22.2) | 13 (19.7) | 13 (25.5) | 13 (25.5) | ||
| Ae (%) | 4 (4.4) | 15 (22.7) | 2 (3.9) | 2 (3.9) | ||
| Clinical stage (UICC 8th) | ||||||
| 0, I, II(%) | 52 (57.8) | 41 (62.1) | 0.585b | 36 (70.6) | 32 (62.8) | 0.401b |
| III, IV (%) | 38 (42.2) | 25 (37.9) | 15 (29.4) | 19 (37.2) | ||
| ASA-PS | ||||||
| 1 (%) | 10 (19.6) | 12 (23.6) | 0.341b | |||
| 2 (%) | 31 (60.8) | 35 (68.6) | ||||
| 3 ≦ (%) | 10 (19.6) | 4 (7.8) | ||||
| Histological diagnosis | ||||||
| SCC (%) | 47 (91.2) | 45 (88.2) | 0.701b | |||
| ADC (%) | 2(3.9) | 2 (3.9) | ||||
| Others (%) | 2 (3.9) | 4 (7.9) | ||||
| Lymph node dissection | ||||||
| Two-field dissection (%) | 19 (37.2) | 24 (47.1) | 0.316b | |||
| Three-field dissection (%) | 32 (62.8) | 27 (52.9) | ||||
IQR inter quartile rate, BMI body mass index, Ce cerbical esophagus, Ut upper thoracic esophagus, Mt middle thoracic esophagus, Lt lower thoracic esophagus, Ae abdominal esophagus, SCC squamous cell carcinoma, ADC adenocarcinoma
aMann–Whitney test
bχ2 test
Fig. 5Five-case moving average of thoracoscopic operative time
Surgical findings
| Variables | Group after microanatomy-based standardization in TEPP ( | Group of RAMIE (51 cases) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intraoperative findings | |||
| Thoracoscopic operative time [min (IQR)] | 211 (170–236) | 215 (172–239) | 0.356a |
| Blood loss [ml (IQR)] | 235 (100–450) | 150 (100–235) | 0.038a |
| Number of dissected No. 106 lymph nodes (IQR) | 10 (8–15) | 11 (8–14) | 0.799a |
| Conversion to thoracotomy (%) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1.000b |
| Postoperative findings | |||
| Total morbidity [Grade II ~ (%)] | 25 (49.0) | 23 (45.1) | 0.692b |
| Respiratory complication [Grade II ~ (%)] | 10 (19.6) | 9 (17.7) | 0.799b |
| Recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy | |||
| [Grade I ~ (%)] | 8 (15.7) | 9 (17.7) | 0.791b |
| Anastomotic leakage [Grade II ~ (%)] | 7 (13.7) | 5 (9.8) | 0.539b |
| ICU stay [day (IQR)] | 6 (5–6) | 5 (5–6) | 0.502a |
| Postoperative hospital stay [day (IQR)] | 23 (18–33) | 25 (21–36) | 0.097a |
| In- hospital mortality (%) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1.000b |
Complications are described on the Clavien-Dindo classification [29]
IQR inter quartile rate, ICU intensive care unit
aMann–Whitney test
bχ2 test