Early Quality of Life Outcomes After Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive and Open Esophagectomy

被引:48
|
作者
Sarkaria, Inderpal S.
Rizk, Nabil P.
Goldman, Debra A.
Sima, Camelia
Tan, Kay See
Bains, Manjit S.
Adusumilli, Prasad S.
Molena, Daniela
Bott, Matthew
Atkinson, Thomas
Jones, David R.
Rusch, Valerie W.
机构
[1] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, Dept Surg, Thorac Div, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10021 USA
[2] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, New York, NY 10021 USA
来源
ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY | 2019年 / 108卷 / 03期
关键词
CANCER STATISTICS; MULTICENTER; EXPERIENCE; THERAPY;
D O I
10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.11.075
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background. Minimally invasive esophagectomy may improve some perioperative outcomes over open approaches; effects on quality of life are less clear. Methods. A prospective trial of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) and open esophagectomy was initiated, measuring quality of life via the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophageal and Brief Pain Inventory. Mixed generalized linear models assessed associations between quality of life scores over time and by surgery type. Results. In total, 106 patients underwent open esophagectomy; 64 underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (98% RAMIE). The groups did not differ in age, sex, comorbidities, histologic subtype, stage, or induction treatment (P = .42 to P > .95). Total Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophageal scores were lower at 1 month (P < .001), returned to near baseline by 4 months, and did not differ between groups (P = .83). Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity (P = .007) and interference (P = .004) were lower for RAMIE. RAMIE had lower estimated blood loss (250 vs 350 cm(3); P < .001), shorter length of stay (9 vs 11 days; P < .001), fewer intensive care unit admissions (8% vs 20%; P = .033), more lymph nodes harvested (25 vs 22; P = .05), and longer surgical time (6.4 vs 5.4 hours; P < .001). Major complications (39% for RAMIE vs 52% for open esophagectomy; P > .95), anastomotic leak (3% vs 9%; P = .41), and 90-day mortality (2% vs 4%; P = .85) did not differ between groups. Pulmonary (14% vs 34%; P = .014) and infectious (17% vs 36%; P = .029) complications were lower for RAMIE. Conclusions. RAMIE is associated with lower immediate postoperative pain severity and interference and decreased pulmonary and infectious complications. Ongoing data accrual will assess mid-term and long-term outcomes in this cohort. (C) 2019 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons
引用
收藏
页码:920 / 928
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Two-Year Quality of Life Outcomes After Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive and Open Esophagectomy
    Vimolratana, Marc
    Sarkaria, Inderpal S.
    Goldman, Debra A.
    Rizk, Nabil P.
    Tan, Kay See
    Bains, Manjit S.
    Adusumilli, Prasad S.
    Sihag, Smita
    Isbell, James M.
    Huang, James
    Park, Bernard J.
    Molena, Daniela
    Rusch, Valerie W.
    Jones, David R.
    Bott, Matthew J.
    ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2021, 112 (03): : 880 - 889
  • [2] Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive and robotic-assisted esophagectomy
    Kenneth Meredith
    Paige Blinn
    Taylor Maramara
    Caitlin Takahashi
    Jamie Huston
    Ravi Shridhar
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2020, 34 : 814 - 820
  • [3] Comparative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive and Robotic-Assisted Esophagectomy
    Meredith, K.
    Huston, J.
    Briceno, P.
    Hoffe, S.
    Almhanna, K.
    Shridhar, R.
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2017, 24 : S179 - S180
  • [4] Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive and robotic-assisted esophagectomy
    Meredith, Kenneth
    Blinn, Paige
    Maramara, Taylor
    Takahashi, Caitlin
    Huston, Jamie
    Shridhar, Ravi
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2020, 34 (02): : 814 - 820
  • [5] Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive and robotic-assisted esophagectomy.
    Meredith, Kenneth L.
    Huston, Jamie
    Shridhar, Ravi
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2017, 35 (04)
  • [6] Robotic-assisted minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy
    Horgan, S
    Berger, RA
    Elli, EF
    Espat, NJ
    AMERICAN SURGEON, 2003, 69 (07) : 624 - 626
  • [7] Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy-technical considerations and outcomes
    Scheese, Daniel
    Ramamoorthy, Bhavishya U.
    Bane, Ben
    Puig, Carlos A.
    Julliard, Walker A.
    Shah, Rachit D.
    ANNALS OF ESOPHAGUS, 2024, 7
  • [8] Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: is it advantageous over thoracoscopic esophagectomy?
    Lin, Mong-Wei
    Lee, Jang-Ming
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC DISEASE, 2017, 9 (03) : 490 - 491
  • [9] Learning Robotic-Assisted, Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Marathon, Not a Sprint
    Servais, Elliot L.
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2023, 30 (07) : 3887 - 3888
  • [10] Learning Robotic-Assisted, Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Marathon, Not a Sprint
    Elliot L. Servais
    Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2023, 30 : 3887 - 3888