Literature DB >> 33660122

Risk of chyle leak after robotic versus video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy.

Aaron R Dezube1, Suden Kucukak2, Luis E De León2, Kostas Kostopanagiotou3, Michael T Jaklitsch2, Jon O Wee2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We investigate the incidence and risk factors for post-operative outcomes including chyle leak following minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).
METHODS: Patients undergoing MIE from May 2016 until August 2020 were prospectively followed. Outcomes of robotic and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) esophagectomy were analyzed.
RESULTS: 347 esophagectomies were performed: 70 cases were done robotically by 2 surgeons and 277 by VATS by 14 surgeons. Patients had similar demographics, surgical technique, length of stay (LOS), and re-operation rates. Overall complication rates between robotic and VATS MIE were statistically similar (61% vs. 50%; p = 0.082). The majority of complications for either VATS (41.5%) or robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) (51.4%) were grade II. Nineteen patients developed a chyle leak. Patients with a chyle leak were similar in age, gender, and hospital LOS (all p > 0.05), but were more likely to undergo a three-hole or robotic esophagectomy (both p < 0.05) as well as have higher rehabilitation requirements on discharge (26% vs. 10%; p = 0.05). Among the two surgeons who each performed > 20 robotic esophagectomies (n = 70), nine chyle leaks occurred. Rates varied by surgeon (7 vs. 2; p = 0.003). Lower leak rates occurred in the surgeon with more robotic esophagectomy experience (n = 47 vs. 23). Patients were similar in age, and gender (p > 0.05), but those with a chyle leak were more likely to undergo three-hole esophagectomies, prophylactic thoracic duction ligations, undergo the abdominal portion via laparotomy, and not have a prophylactic omental flap (all p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Robotic and VATS esophagectomy have similar rates of re-operation, length of stay, discharge needs and complications. Differences in outcomes between VATS and Robotic esophagectomy appears to be related to surgeon experience with the robot but may also be associated with techniques such as anastomotic height, omental flap utilization and performance of laparoscopy.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chyle leak; Esophagectomy; Minimally invasive; Robotic; Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33660122     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08410-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  22 in total

1.  Robotic-assisted minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy.

Authors:  Santiago Horgan; Robert A Berger; Enrique F Elli; N Joseph Espat
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 0.688

2.  Endoscopic oesophagectomy through a right thoracoscopic approach.

Authors:  A Cuschieri; S Shimi; S Banting
Journal:  J R Coll Surg Edinb       Date:  1992-02

Review 3.  Percutaneous treatment of thoracic duct injuries.

Authors:  Francesca Marcon; Katayun Irani; Theresa Aquino; John K Saunders; Thomas H Gouge; Marcovalerio Melis
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-05-17       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Comparison of short-term outcomes between robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy and video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy in treating middle thoracic esophageal cancer.

Authors:  H-Y Deng; W-X Huang; G Li; S-X Li; J Luo; G Alai; Y Wang; L-X Liu; Y-D Lin
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 3.429

5.  Learning Curve for Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy: Results From 312 Cases.

Authors:  Pieter C van der Sluis; Jelle P Ruurda; Sylvia van der Horst; Lucas Goense; Richard van Hillegersberg
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2018-02-15       Impact factor: 4.330

6.  Attaining Proficiency in Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy While Maximizing Safety During Procedure Development.

Authors:  Inderpal S Sarkaria; Nabil P Rizk; Rachel Grosser; Debra Goldman; David J Finley; Amanda Ghanie; Camelia S Sima; Manjit S Bains; Prasad S Adusumilli; Valerie W Rusch; David R Jones
Journal:  Innovations (Phila)       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug

7.  Defining the learning curve for robotic-assisted esophagogastrectomy.

Authors:  Jonathan M Hernandez; Francesca Dimou; Jill Weber; Khaldoun Almhanna; Sarah Hoffe; Ravi Shridhar; Richard Karl; Kenneth Meredith
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2013-05-21       Impact factor: 3.452

8.  Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Thoracolaparoscopic Esophagectomy Versus Open Transthoracic Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Pieter C van der Sluis; Sylvia van der Horst; Anne M May; Carlo Schippers; Lodewijk A A Brosens; Hans C A Joore; Christiaan C Kroese; Nadia Haj Mohammad; Stella Mook; Frank P Vleggaar; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; Jelle P Ruurda; Richard van Hillegersberg
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy with Intrathoracic Anastomosis (Ivor Lewis): Promising Results in 100 Consecutive Patients (the European Experience).

Authors:  Pieter Christiaan van der Sluis; Evangelos Tagkalos; Edin Hadzijusufovic; Benjamin Babic; Eren Uzun; Richard van Hillegersberg; Hauke Lang; Peter Philipp Grimminger
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2020-02-18       Impact factor: 3.452

10.  Minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lu Lv; Weidong Hu; Yanchen Ren; Xiaoxuan Wei
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2016-10-31       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.