Therese Reinstaller1, Daniela Adolf2, Eric Lorenz1, Roland S Croner1, Frank Benedix3. 1. Department of Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. 2. StatConsult GmbH, Halberstädter Strasse 40a, 39112, Magdeburg, Germany. 3. Department of Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. frank.benedix@med.ovgu.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Minimally invasive en-bloc esophagectomy is associated with a reduction of postoperative morbidity. This was demonstrated for both total minimally invasive and hybrid esophagectomy. However, little is known about any benefits of robotic assistance compared to the conventional minimally invasive technique, especially in hybrid procedures. METHODS: For this retrospective study, all consecutive patients who had undergone elective esophagectomy with circular stapled intrathoracic anastomosis using the open and the minimally invasive hybrid technique at the University Hospital Magdeburg, from January 2010 to March 2021 were considered for analysis. RESULTS: In total, 137 patients (60.4%) had undergone open esophagectomy. In 45 patients (19.8%), the laparoscopic hybrid technique and in 45 patients (19.8%), the robot-assisted hybrid technique were applied. In propensity score matching analysis comparing the open with the robotic hybrid technique, significant differences were found in favor of the robotic technique (postoperative morbidity, p < 0.01; hospital length of stay, p < 0.01; number of lymph nodes retrieved, p = 0.048). In propensity score matching analysis comparing the laparoscopic with the robotic hybrid technique, a significant reduction of the rate of postoperative delayed gastric emptying (p = 0.02) was found for patients who had undergone robotic esophagectomy. However, the operation time was significantly longer (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: En-bloc esophagectomy using the robotic hybrid technique is associated with a significant reduction of postoperative morbidity and of the hospital length of stay when compared to the open approach. However, when compared to the laparoscopic hybrid technique, only few advantages could be demonstrated.
PURPOSE: Minimally invasive en-bloc esophagectomy is associated with a reduction of postoperative morbidity. This was demonstrated for both total minimally invasive and hybrid esophagectomy. However, little is known about any benefits of robotic assistance compared to the conventional minimally invasive technique, especially in hybrid procedures. METHODS: For this retrospective study, all consecutive patients who had undergone elective esophagectomy with circular stapled intrathoracic anastomosis using the open and the minimally invasive hybrid technique at the University Hospital Magdeburg, from January 2010 to March 2021 were considered for analysis. RESULTS: In total, 137 patients (60.4%) had undergone open esophagectomy. In 45 patients (19.8%), the laparoscopic hybrid technique and in 45 patients (19.8%), the robot-assisted hybrid technique were applied. In propensity score matching analysis comparing the open with the robotic hybrid technique, significant differences were found in favor of the robotic technique (postoperative morbidity, p < 0.01; hospital length of stay, p < 0.01; number of lymph nodes retrieved, p = 0.048). In propensity score matching analysis comparing the laparoscopic with the robotic hybrid technique, a significant reduction of the rate of postoperative delayed gastric emptying (p = 0.02) was found for patients who had undergone robotic esophagectomy. However, the operation time was significantly longer (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: En-bloc esophagectomy using the robotic hybrid technique is associated with a significant reduction of postoperative morbidity and of the hospital length of stay when compared to the open approach. However, when compared to the laparoscopic hybrid technique, only few advantages could be demonstrated.
Authors: William D Hazelton; Kit Curtius; John M Inadomi; Thomas L Vaughan; Rafael Meza; Joel H Rubenstein; Chin Hur; E Georg Luebeck Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Eline M de Groot; Sylvia van der Horst; B Feike Kingma; Lucas Goense; Pieter C van der Sluis; Jelle P Ruurda; Richard van Hillegersberg Journal: Dis Esophagus Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 3.429
Authors: E Tagkalos; L Goense; M Hoppe-Lotichius; J P Ruurda; B Babic; E Hadzijusufovic; W Kneist; P C van der Sluis; H Lang; R van Hillegersberg; P P Grimminger Journal: Dis Esophagus Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 3.429
Authors: B P Müller-Stich; P Probst; H Nienhüser; S Fazeli; J Senft; E Kalkum; P Heger; R Warschkow; F Nickel; A T Billeter; P P Grimminger; C Gutschow; T S Dabakuyo-Yonli; G Piessen; M Paireder; S F Schoppmann; D L van der Peet; M A Cuesta; P van der Sluis; R van Hillegersberg; A H Hölscher; M K Diener; T Schmidt Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2021-09-27 Impact factor: 6.939
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