Effect of the postural transition in minimally invasive esophagectomy: a propensity score matching analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuichiro Tanishima ◽  
Katsunori Nishikawa ◽  
Yoshitaka Ishikawa ◽  
Keita Takahashi ◽  
Takahiro Masuda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer: a propensity-matched analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
E Tagkalos ◽  
L Goense ◽  
M Hoppe-Lotichius ◽  
J P Ruurda ◽  
B Babic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Reconstruction Technique ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Icu Stay

SUMMARY Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is increasingly being applied as treatment for esophageal cancer. In this study, the results of 50 RAMIE procedures were compared with 50 conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) operations, which had been the standard treatment for esophageal cancer prior to the robotic era. Between April 2016 and March 2018, data of 100 consecutive patients with esophageal carcinoma undergoing modified Ivor Lewis esophagectomy were prospectively collected. All operations were performed by the same surgeon using an identical intrathoracic anastomotic reconstruction technique with the same perioperative management and pain control regimen. Intra-operative and postoperative complications were graded according to definitions stated by the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group. Data analysis was carried out with and without propensity score matching. Baseline characteristics did not show significant differences between the RAMIE and MIE group. Propensity score matching of the initial group of 100 patients resulted in two equal groups of 40 patients for each surgical approach. In the RAMIE group, the median total lymph node yield was 27 (range 13–84) compared to 23 in the MIE group (range 11–48), P = 0.053. Median intensive care unit (ICU) stay was 1 day (range 1–43) in the RAMIE group compared to 2 days (range 1–17) in the MIE group (P = 0.029). The incidence of postoperative complications was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.581). In this propensity-matched study comparing RAMIE to MIE, ICU stay was significantly shorter in the RAMIE group. There was a trend in improved lymphadenectomy in RAMIE.

scholarly journals Comparison of Minimally Invasive versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 982 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaewoo Kwon ◽  
Ki Byung Song ◽  
Seo Young Park ◽  
Dakyum Shin ◽  
Sarang Hong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Propensity Score Matching Analysis ◽  
Oncological Outcomes ◽  
Hospital Stays

Background: Few studies have compared perioperative and oncological outcomes between minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods: A retrospective review of patients undergoing MIPD and OPD for PDAC from January 2011 to December 2017 was performed. Perioperative, oncological, and survival outcomes were analyzed before and after propensity score matching (PSM). Results: Data from 1048 patients were evaluated (76 MIPD, 972 OPD). After PSM, 73 patients undergoing MIPD were matched with 219 patients undergoing OPD. Operation times were longer for MIPD than OPD (392 vs. 327 min, p < 0.001). Postoperative hospital stays were shorter for MIPD patients than OPD patients (12.4 vs. 14.2 days, p = 0.040). The rate of overall complications and postoperative pancreatic fistula did not differ between the two groups. Adjuvant treatment rates were higher following MIPD (80.8% vs. 59.8%, p = 0.002). With the exception of perineural invasion, no differences were seen between the two groups in pathological outcomes. The median overall survival and disease-free survival rates did not differ between the groups. Conclusions: MIPD showed shorter postoperative hospital stays and comparable perioperative and oncological outcomes to OPD for selected PDAC patients. Future randomized studies will be required to validate these findings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document