Propensity-Matched Analysis of the Short-Term Outcome of Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Conventional Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy in Thoracic Esophageal Cancer

被引:19
作者
Fujita, Takeo [1 ]
Sato, Kazuma [1 ]
Ozaki, Asako [1 ]
Akutsu, Tomohiro [1 ]
Fujiwara, Hisashi [1 ]
Kojima, Takashi [2 ]
Daiko, Hiroyuki [3 ]
机构
[1] Natl Canc Ctr Hosp East, Div Esophageal Surg, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan
[2] Natl Canc Ctr Hosp East, Div Gastrointestinal Oncol, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan
[3] Natl Canc Ctr, Div Esophageal Surg, Tokyo, Japan
关键词
POSTOPERATIVE OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1007/s00268-022-06567-0
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background In this matched-cohort study, we investigated the short-term outcome of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) compared with conventional minimally invasive thoracoscopic esophagectomy (MIE) in esophageal cancer patients. Methods One hundred eighty-nine patients with thoracic esophageal cancer scheduled to undergo thoracic esophagectomy between 2020 and 2021 were assigned to either RAMIE or MIE. Then, we retrospectively evaluated the postoperative surgical complications between two groups in a propensity-matched analyzation. Results Based on the propensity-matched score, 50 patients who underwent RAMIE or MIE were selected. Thoracic surgery time in RAMIE/MIE group were 233.1/173.3 min (p < 0.01), respectively. No significant intergroup differences were observed regarding incisional anastomotic leakage (RAMIE group 4.0% vs. MIE group 6.0%) and pneumonia (RAMIE group 8.0% vs. MIE group 12.0%; p = 0.68). The respective incidences of recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis were 34.0 and 8.0% in the MIE and RAMIE groups, respectively (p < 0.01). In the matched cohort, no differences were observed between the groups in the success accomplishment of the clinical management pathway (RAMIE group 94.0% vs. MIE group 88.0%). Conclusions Although patients who underwent RAMIE had longer operation times, the incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis was lower than with MIE. Further study in a prospective multi-institutional setting are required to confirm the superiority of RAMIE compared with MIE.
引用
收藏
页码:1926 / 1933
页数:8
相关论文
共 20 条
[1]   Robotic minimally invasive esophagectomy provides superior surgical resection [J].
Ali, Ahmed M. ;
Bachman, Katelynn C. ;
Worrell, Stephanie G. ;
Gray, Kelsey E. ;
Perry, Yaron ;
Linden, Philip A. ;
Towe, Christopher W. .
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2021, 35 (11) :6329-6334
[2]   Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-thoracoscopic technique. Systematic review and meta-analysis [J].
Angeramo, Cristian A. ;
Bras Harriott, Camila ;
Casas, Maria A. ;
Schlottmann, Francisco .
SURGERY, 2021, 170 (06) :1692-1701
[3]   Robotic-assisted Esophagectomy vs Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy (REVATE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial [J].
Chao, Yin-Kai ;
Li, Zhi-Gang ;
Wen, Yu-Wen ;
Kim, Dae-Joon ;
Park, Seong-Yong ;
Chang, Yu-Ling ;
van der Sluis, Pieter C. ;
Ruurda, Jelle P. ;
van Hillegersberg, Richard .
TRIALS, 2019, 20 (1)
[4]   Transition from video-assisted thoracoscopic to robotic esophagectomy: a single surgeon's experience [J].
Chao, Yin-Kai ;
Wen, Yu-Wen ;
Chuang, Wen-Yu ;
Cerfolio, Robert J. .
DISEASES OF THE ESOPHAGUS, 2020, 33 (02)
[5]   Safety and efficacy of hydroxyethyl starch 6% 130/0.4/9 solution versus 5% human serum albumin in thoracic esophagectomy with 3-field lymph nodes dissection [J].
Fujita, Takeo ;
Okada, Naoya ;
Horikiri, Yasumasa ;
Sato, Takuji ;
Fujiwara, Hisashi ;
Mayanagi, Shuhei ;
Kanamori, Jun ;
Yamamoto, Hiroyuki ;
Daiko, Hiroyuki .
SURGERY TODAY, 2019, 49 (05) :427-434
[6]   Excess Cost and Predictive Factors of Esophagectomy Complications in the SEER-Medicare Database [J].
Jiang, Renjian ;
Liu, Yuan ;
Ward, Kevin C. ;
Force, Seth D. ;
Pickens, Allan ;
Sancheti, Manu S. ;
Javidfar, Jeffrey ;
Fernandez, Felix G. ;
Khullar, Onkar, V .
ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2018, 106 (05) :1484-1491
[7]   National trends and perioperative outcomes of robotic oesophagectomy following induction chemoradiation therapy: a National Cancer Database propensity-matched analysis [J].
Kamel, Mohamed K. ;
Sholi, Adam N. ;
Rahouma, Mohamed ;
Harrison, Sebron W. ;
Lee, Benjamin ;
Stiles, Brendon M. ;
Altorki, Nasser K. ;
Port, Jeffrey L. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY, 2021, 59 (02) :403-408
[8]   Extended Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: Japan Clinical Oncology Group postoperative complications criteria [J].
Katayama, Hiroshi ;
Kurokawa, Yukinori ;
Nakamura, Kenichi ;
Ito, Hiroyuki ;
Kanemitsu, Yukihide ;
Masuda, Norikazu ;
Tsubosa, Yasuhiro ;
Satoh, Toyomi ;
Yokomizo, Akira ;
Fukuda, Haruhiko ;
Sasako, Mitsuru .
SURGERY TODAY, 2016, 46 (06) :668-685
[9]   Minimally Invasive Versus Open Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer or Cancer of the Gastroesophageal Junction: Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes and Long-term Survival Using Propensity Score Matching Analysis [J].
Knitter, Sebastin ;
Andreou, Andreas ;
Hofmann, Tobias ;
Chopra, Sascha ;
Denecke, Christian ;
Thuss-patience, Peter C. ;
Kroll, Dino ;
Bahra, Marcus ;
Schmelzle, Moritz ;
Pratschke, Johann ;
Biebl, Matthias .
ANTICANCER RESEARCH, 2021, 41 (07) :3499-3510
[10]   Trends and outcomes of robotic surgery for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers in the USA: maintaining perioperative and oncologic safety [J].
Konstantinidis, Ioannis T. ;
Ituarte, Philip ;
Woo, Yanghee ;
Warner, Susanne G. ;
Melstrom, Kurt ;
Kim, Jae ;
Singh, Gagandeep ;
Lee, Byrne ;
Fong, Yuman ;
Melstrom, Laleh G. .
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2020, 34 (11) :4932-4942