Literature DB >> 36261780

Perioperative Outcomes and Learning Curve of Robot-Assisted McKeown Esophagectomy.

Hai-Bo Sun1, Duo Jiang2, Xian-Ben Liu2, Wen-Qun Xing2, Shi-Lei Liu2, Pei-Nan Chen2, Peng Li2, Ya-Xing Ma2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy (RAME) and the learning curves of surgeons performing RAME at a single center.
METHODS: Perioperative outcomes of RAME and video-assisted McKeown esophagectomy (VAME) were compared after eliminating confounding factors by propensity score matching (PSM). The cumulative sum (CUSUM) method was used to evaluate the learning curves of RAME for a single surgical team.
RESULTS: In general, a total of 198 patients with esophageal cancer (RAME: 45 patients, VAME: 153 patients) were included in this study, and 43 pairs of patients receiving RAME or VAME were matched using 1:1 PSM analysis. Those in the RAME group had more lymph nodes dissected in the total lymph nodes (median 29.0 vs. 26.0, P = 0.011) and the upper mediastinum (median 8.0 vs. 6.0, P < 0.001), especially the left recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) lymph node (median 4.0 vs. 2.0, P = 0.001). According to the trend of the CUSUM plot, the learning curve was divided into two stages at the 20th RAME procedure. After mastering the learning curve, RAME harvested a significantly higher number of upper mediastinal lymph nodes (median 9.0 vs. 6.0, P = 0.001), left RLN lymph nodes (median 5.0 vs. 3.5, P = 0.003), and right RLN lymph nodes (median 4.0 vs. 2.0, P = 0.002). Meanwhile, the incidence of postoperative pneumonia in the proficiency phase was significantly lower than that in the learning phase (4.0% vs. 25.0%, P = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: RAME improved left RLN lymph node dissection. Surgeons with extensive VAME experience need at least 20 cases to achieve early proficiency in RAME.
© 2022. The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Esophageal cancer; Learning curve; Perioperative outcomes; Robotic esophagectomy

Year:  2022        PMID: 36261780     DOI: 10.1007/s11605-022-05484-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg        ISSN: 1091-255X            Impact factor:   3.267


  23 in total

Review 1.  Esophageal cancer: Risk factors, screening and endoscopic treatment in Western and Eastern countries.

Authors:  María José Domper Arnal; Ángel Ferrández Arenas; Ángel Lanas Arbeloa
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  Prevention of intra-thoracic recurrent laryngeal nerve injury with robot-assisted esophagectomy.

Authors:  Kei Hosoda; Masahiro Niihara; Hideki Ushiku; Hiroki Harada; Mikiko Sakuraya; Marie Washio; Keishi Yamashita; Naoki Hiki
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 3.445

3.  Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Surya S A Y Biere; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Kirsten W Maas; Luigi Bonavina; Camiel Rosman; Josep Roig Garcia; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Jean H G Klinkenbijl; Markus W Hollmann; Elly S M de Lange; H Jaap Bonjer; Donald L van der Peet; Miguel A Cuesta
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 4.  Oesophageal carcinoma.

Authors:  Arjun Pennathur; Michael K Gibson; Blair A Jobe; James D Luketich
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2013-02-02       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Worldwide trends in surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer.

Authors:  L Haverkamp; M F J Seesing; J P Ruurda; J Boone; R V Hillegersberg
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 3.429

6.  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

7.  Contribution of PET imaging to radiotherapy planning and monitoring in glioma patients - a report of the PET/RANO group.

Authors:  Norbert Galldiks; Maximilian Niyazi; Anca L Grosu; Martin Kocher; Karl-Josef Langen; Ian Law; Giuseppe Minniti; Michelle M Kim; Christina Tsien; Frederic Dhermain; Riccardo Soffietti; Minesh P Mehta; Michael Weller; Jörg-Christian Tonn
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 12.300

8.  Oncologic Long-Term Results of Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Thoraco-Laparoscopic Esophagectomy with Two-Field Lymphadenectomy for Esophageal Cancer.

Authors:  P C van der Sluis; J P Ruurda; R J J Verhage; S van der Horst; L Haverkamp; P D Siersema; I H M Borel Rinkes; F J W Ten Kate; R van Hillegersberg
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-05-29       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  Comparisons of short-term outcomes between robot-assisted and thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy with extended two-field lymph node dissection for resectable thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Junying Chen; Qianwen Liu; Xu Zhang; Hong Yang; Zihui Tan; Yaobin Lin; Jianhua Fu
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 2.895

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.