scholarly journals A standardized approach for the thoracic dissection in robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE)

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
B F Kingma ◽  
M Read ◽  
R van Hillegersberg ◽  
Y K Chao ◽  
J P Ruurda
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Patient Positioning ◽  
Good Alternative ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Port Placement ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy ◽  
Technical Details ◽  
Set Up

ABSTRACT Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is increasingly being adopted as the preferred surgical treatment for esophageal cancer, as it is superior to open esophagectomy and a good alternative to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy. This paper addresses the technical details of the thoracoscopic phase of RAMIE, including the operating room set-up, patient positioning, port placement, and surgical steps.

P28 AN OPEN TRANSTHORACIC ESOPHAGECTOMY RESULTS IN HIGHER POSTOPERATIVE C-REACTIVE PROTEIN LEVELS COMPARED TO MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
B Babic ◽  
der Sluis P van ◽  
I Gockel ◽  
F Corvinus ◽  
E Tagkalos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Surgical Approach ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Surgical Approaches ◽  
C Reactive Protein ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy ◽  
Reactive Protein

Abstract Aim With the introduction of minimally invasive access in centers for esophageal surgery, complications as well as mortality rates decreased. Laboratory tests are used routinely to screen patients for postoperative complications as early as possible. Still, the course of several laboratory parameters after esophagectomy following different surgical approaches has not been described yet and thus, reference values do not exist. Nowadays, the interpretation of inflammatory markers depends on the expertise of the medical staff. The aim of this study is to evaluate the development of CRP and leukocytes after thoracoabdominal esophagectomy following four different surgical approaches. Background & Methods 217 consecutive patients receiving a thoracoabdominal esophagectomy with either open, hybrid, totally minimally invasive or robot-assisted minimally invasive technique between 2008 and 2018 have been evaluated. Daily blood tests regarding C-reactive protein (CRP) and leukocytes have been performed daily in all patients. Data was collected prospectively and analyzed depending on the postoperative course and the surgical approach. Results There is a natural increase of leukocytes and CRP with peak values on the 2nd postoperative day (POD) after thoracoabdominal esophagectomy following all surgical approaches. The increase of inflammatory parameters is significantly higher after open esophagectomy on the first three postoperative days compared to the three minimally invasive procedures. Furthermore, postoperative CRP values > 200 mg/l on the 2nd postoperative day as well as an open esohagectomy are independently associated with postoperative complications. Conclusion The development of postoperative inflammatory laboratory parameters after esophagectomy is significantly depending on the surgical approach. Open esophagectomy results in significantly higher CRP and leukocyte values compared to the hybrid esophagectomy, minimally invasive esophagectomy and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy. Open esophagectomy and an increase of CRP on the 2nd postoperative day above 200 mg/l are an independent positive predictor for postoperative complications in multivariate analysis.

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 Technical details of the hand-sewn and circular-stapled anastomosis in robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eline M de Groot ◽  
Thorben Möller ◽  
B Feike Kingma ◽  
Peter P Grimminger ◽  
Thomas Becker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Anastomotic Leakage ◽  
Moving Average ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Stapled Anastomosis ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Intrathoracic Anastomosis ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Technical Details

SUMMARY The circular mechanical and hand-sewn intrathoracic anastomosis are most often used in robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). The aim of this study was to describe the technical details of both techniques that were pioneered in two high volume centers for RAMIE. A prospectively maintained database was used to identify patients with esophageal cancer who underwent RAMIE with intrathoracic anastomosis. The primary outcome was anastomotic leakage, which was analyzed using a moving average curve. For the hand-sewn anastomosis, video recordings were reviewed to evaluate number of sutures and distances between the anastomosis and the longitudinal staple line or gastric conduit tip. Between 2016 and 2019, a total of 68 patients with a hand-sewn anastomosis and 60 patients with a circular-stapled anastomosis were included in the study. For the hand-sewn anastomosis, the moving average curve for anastomotic leakage (including grade 1–3) started at a rate of 40% (cases 1–10) and ended at 10% (cases 59–68). For the circular-stapled anastomosis, the moving average started at 10% (cases 1–10) and ended at 20% (cases 51–60). This study showed the technical details and refinements that were applied in developing two different anastomotic techniques for RAMIE. Results markedly improved during the period of development with specific changes in technique for the hand-sewn anastomosis. The circular-stapled anastomosis showed a more stable rate of performance.

696 LONG-TERM OUTCOMES OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY COMPARED TO OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY: A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF 2958 CASES IN SINGLE CANCER CENTER

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xue-feng Leng ◽  
Kexun Li ◽  
Qifeng Wang ◽  
Wenwu He ◽  
Kun Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy ◽  
Single Cancer

Abstract   Esophageal cancer is the fourth primary cause of cancer-related death in the male in China.The cornerstone of treatment for resectable esophageal cancer is surgery. With the development of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), it is gradually adopted as an alternative to open esophagectomy (OE) in real-world practice. The purpose of this study is to explore whether MIE vs. OE will bring survival benefits to patients with the advancement of treatment techniques and concepts. Methods Data were obtained from the Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute Esophageal Cancer Case Management Database (SCH-ECCM Database). We retrospective analyzed esophageal cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy from Jan. 2010 to Nov. 2017. Patients were divided into two groups: MIE and OE groups. Clinical outcome and survival data were compared using TNM stages of AJCC 8th edition. Results After 65.3 months of median follow-up time, 2958 patients who received esophagectomy were included. 1106 of 2958 patients (37.4%) were underwent MIE, 1533 of 2958 patients (51.8%) were underwent OE. More than half of the patients (56.7%, 1673/2958) were above stage III. The median overall survival (OS) of 2958 patients was 51.6 months (95% CI 45.2–58.1). The MIE group's median OS was 74.6 months compared to 42.4 months in the OE group (95% CI 1.23–1.54, P &lt; 0.001). The OS at 1, 3, and 5 years were 90%, 68%, 58% in the MIE group; 85%, 54%, 42% in the OE group,respectively (P&lt;0.001). Conclusion The nearly 8-year follow-up data from this single cancer center suggests that with the advancement of minimally invasive surgical technology, MIE can bring significant benefits to patients' long-term survival compared with OE. Following the continuous progression of minimally invasive surgery and establishing a mature surgical team, MIE should be encouraged.

Costs and benefits of different methods of esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 513-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alongkorn Yanasoot ◽  
Kamtorn Yolsuriyanwong ◽  
Sakchai Ruangsin ◽  
Supparerk Laohawiriyakamol ◽  
Somkiat Sunpaweravong
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Laparoscopic Approach ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Invasive Approach ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy

Background A minimally invasive approach to esophagectomy is being used increasingly, but concerns remain regarding the feasibility, safety, cost, and outcomes. We performed an analysis of the costs and benefits of minimally invasive, hybrid, and open esophagectomy approaches for esophageal cancer surgery. Methods The data of 83 consecutive patients who underwent a McKeown’s esophagectomy at Prince of Songkla University Hospital between January 2008 and December 2014 were analyzed. Open esophagectomy was performed in 54 patients, minimally invasive esophagectomy in 13, and hybrid esophagectomy in 16. There were no differences in patient characteristics among the 3 groups Minimally invasive esophagectomy was undertaken via a thoracoscopic-laparoscopic approach, hybrid esophagectomy via a thoracoscopic-laparotomy approach, and open esophagectomy by a thoracotomy-laparotomy approach. Results Minimally invasive esophagectomy required a longer operative time than hybrid or open esophagectomy ( p = 0.02), but these patients reported less postoperative pain ( p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in blood loss, intensive care unit stay, hospital stay, or postoperative complications among the 3 groups. Minimally invasive esophagectomy incurred higher operative and surgical material costs than hybrid or open esophagectomy ( p = 0.01), but there were no significant differences in inpatient care and total hospital costs. Conclusion Minimally invasive esophagectomy resulted in the least postoperative pain but the greatest operative cost and longest operative time. Open esophagectomy was associated with the lowest operative cost and shortest operative time but the most postoperative pain. Hybrid esophagectomy had a shorter learning curve while sharing the advantages of minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Long-term survival in esophageal cancer after minimally invasive esophagectomy compared to open esophagectomy

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Eivind Gottlieb-Vedi ◽  
Joonas H. Kauppila ◽  
Fredrik Mattsson ◽  
Mats Lindblad ◽  
Magnus Nilsson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy

623 MINIMALLY INVASIVE VERSUS OPEN MCKEOWN FOR PATIENTS WITH ESOPHAGEAL CANCER: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Zheng ◽  
Wenqun Xing ◽  
Xianben Liu ◽  
Haibo Sun
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Group 14 ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy ◽  
Surgery Department

Abstract   McKeown Minimally invasive esophagectomy(McKeown-MIE) offers advantages in short-term outcomes compared with McKeown open esophagectomy(McKeown-OE). However, debate as to whether MIE is equivalent or better than OE regarding survival outcomes is ongoing. The aim of this study was to compare long-term survival between McKeown-MIE and McKeown-OE in a large cohort of esophageal cancer(EC) patients. Methods We used a prospective database of the Thoracic Surgery Department at our Cancer Hospital and included patients who underwent McKeown-MIE and McKeown-OE for EC during January 1, 2015, to January 6, 2018. The perioperative data and overall survival(OS) rate in the two groups were retrospectively compared. Results We included 502 patients who underwent McKeown-MIE (n = 306) or McKeown-OE (n = 196) for EC. The median age was 63 years. All baseline characteristics were well-balanced between two groups. There was a significantly shorter mean operative time (269.76 min vs. 321.14 min, P &lt; 0.001) in OE group. The 30-day and in hospital mortality were 0 and no difference for 90-day mortality (P = 0.116). The postoperative stay was shorter in MIE group, 14 days and 18 days in the MIE and OE groups(P &lt; 0.001). The OS at 32 months was 76.82% and 64.31% in the MIE and OE groups (P = 0.001); hazard ratio(HR) (95% CI): 2.333 (1.384–3.913). Conclusion These results showed the McKeown-MIE group was associated with a better long-term survival, compared with open-MIE for patients with resectable EC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document