Intrathoracic Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE) Ivor Lewis End-To-Side Anastomosis

2021 ◽  
pp. 195-199
Author(s):  
Ismael Diez del Val ◽  
Carlos Loureiro González
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy

scholarly journals Multicenter Experience in Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy — a Comparison of Hybrid and Totally Robot-Assisted Techniques

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter P. Grimminger ◽  
Julia I. Staubitz ◽  
Daniel Perez ◽  
Tarik Ghadban ◽  
Matthias Reeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Anastomotic Leak ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Risk Ratios

Abstract Background Oncological esophageal surgery has evolved significantly in the last decades. From open esophagectomy over (hybrid) minimally invasive surgery, nowadays, robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) approaches are applied. Current techniques require an analysis of possible advantages and disadvantages indicating the direction towards a novel gold standard. Methods Robot-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomies, performed in the period from April 2017 to June 2019 in five German centers (Berlin, Cologne, Hamburg, Kiel, Mainz), were included in this study. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative parameters were assessed. Cases were grouped for hybrid (H-RAMIE) versus totally robot-assisted (T-RAMIE) approaches. Postoperative parameters and complications were compared using risk ratios. Results A total of 175 operations were performed as T-RAMIE and 67 as H-RAMIE. Patient age (median age 62 years) and sex (83.1% male) were similarly distributed in both groups. Median duration of esophagectomy was significantly lower in the T-RAMIE group (385 versus 427 min, p < 0.001). The risks of “overall morbidity” (32.0 versus 47.8%; risk ratio [RR], 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5, 1.1–2.1; p = 0.026), “anastomotic leak” (10.3 versus 22.4%; RR, CI: 2.2, 1.2–4.1; p = 0.020), and “respiratory failure” (1.1 versus 7.5%; RR, CI: 6.5, 1.3–32.9; p = 0.019) were significantly higher in case of H-RAMIE. Conclusions In the five participating German centers, T-RAMIE was the preferred procedure (72.3% of operations). In comparison to H-RAMIE, T-RAMIE was associated with a significantly reduced risk of postoperative morbidity, anastomotic leak, and respiratory failure as well as a significantly reduced time necessary for esophagectomy.

scholarly journals European consensus on essential steps of Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis and McKeown Esophagectomy through Delphi methodology

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yassin Eddahchouri ◽  
◽  
Frans van Workum ◽  
Frits J. H. van den Wildenberg ◽  
Mark I. van Berge Henegouwen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Round Table ◽  
Round Table Discussion ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Delphi Methodology ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
European Consensus ◽  
Mckeown Esophagectomy

Abstract Background Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is a complex and technically demanding procedure with a long learning curve, which is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. To master MIE, training in essential steps is crucial. Yet, no consensus on essential steps of MIE is available. The aim of this study was to achieve expert consensus on essential steps in Ivor Lewis and McKeown MIE through Delphi methodology. Methods Based on expert opinion and peer-reviewed literature, essential steps were defined for Ivor Lewis (IL) and McKeown (McK) MIE. In a round table discussion, experts finalized the lists of steps and an online Delphi questionnaire was sent to an international expert panel (7 European countries) of minimally invasive upper GI surgeons. Based on replies and comments, steps were adjusted and rephrased and sent in iterative fashion until consensus was achieved. Results Two Delphi rounds were conducted and response rates were 74% (23 out of 31 experts) for the first and 81% (27 out of 33 experts) for the second round. Consensus was achieved on 106 essential steps for both the IL and McK approach. Cronbach’s alpha in the first round was 0.78 (IL) and 0.78 (McK) and in the second round 0.92 (IL) and 0.88 (McK). Conclusions Consensus among European experts was achieved on essential surgical steps for both Ivor Lewis and McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy.

scholarly journals Robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: Ivor-Lewis approach

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 21-21
Author(s):  
Kelsey Musgrove ◽  
Charlotte R. Spear ◽  
Jahnavi Kakuturu ◽  
Britney R. Harris ◽  
Fazil Abbas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy

scholarly journals Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Frans van Workum ◽  
Bastiaan R Klarenbeek ◽  
Nikolaj Baranov ◽  
Maroeska M Rovers ◽  
Camiel Rosman
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Leakage Rate ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Lymph Node Count ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Node Count

Summary Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing HMIE with TMIE. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles comparing HMIE and TMIE were included. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. The primary outcome was pneumonia. Sensitivity analysis was performed by analyzing outcome for open chest hybrid MIE versus total TMIE and open abdomen MIE versus TMIE separately. Therefore, subgroup analysis was performed for laparoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, thoracoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, Ivor Lewis HMIE versus Ivor Lewis TMIE, and McKeown HMIE versus McKeown TMIE. There were no randomized controlled trials. Twenty-nine studies with a total of 3732 patients were included. Studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. In the main analysis, the pooled incidence of pneumonia was 19.0% after HMIE and 9.8% after TMIE which was not significantly different between the groups (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97–2.20). TMIE was associated with a lower incidence of wound infections (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.13–2.90) and less blood loss (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.34–1.22) but with longer operative time (SMD:-0.33, 95% CI: −0.59—-0.08). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy-assisted HMIE was associated with a higher lymph node count than TMIE, and Ivor Lewis HMIE was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate than Ivor Lewis TMIE. In general, TMIE was associated with moderately lower morbidity compared to HMIE, but randomized controlled evidence is lacking. The higher leakage rate and lower lymph node count that was found after TMIE in sensitivity analysis indicate that TMIE can also have disadvantages. The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully by surgeons when moving from HMIE to TMIE.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document