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

End to side circular stapled anastomosis during robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE)

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Capovilla ◽  
Edin Hadzijusufovic ◽  
Evangelos Tagkalos ◽  
Caterina Froiio ◽  
Felix Berlth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Postoperative Mortality ◽  
The Other ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Intrathoracic Anastomosis ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy

Abstract Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) represents an established approach for the treatment of esophageal cancer. Aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of our technique for performing the intrathoracic anastomosis during RAMIE.All the procedures were performed by the same surgeon using the same technique for performing the intrathoracic anastomosis. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were recorded. Postoperative complications were classified according to the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG); the primary outcome was the evaluation of the feasibility and safety of our technique. From 2016 to 2021, 204 patients underwent Ivor Lewis RAMIE at our Center. Two patients (0.9%) were converted during the thoracic phase. The anastomosis was completed in all the other patients forming complete anastomotic rings. The median duration for the robotic-assisted thoracoscopic phase was 224 minutes. Twenty-two of the RAMIE-Ivor Lewis patients had an anastomotic leakage (10.3%). The overall 90-day postoperative mortality was 1.9%. The procedure resulted to be feasible and safe in our cohort of patients.

Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive and robotic-assisted esophagectomy.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 167-167
Author(s):  
Kenneth L Meredith ◽  
Jamie Huston ◽  
Ravi Shridhar
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Patient Demographics

167 Background: Minimally invasive esophagectomy(MIE) has demonstrated superior outcomes compared to open approaches. The myriad of techniques has precluded the recommendation of a standard approach. The addition of robotics has potential to further improve outcomes. We sought to compare the outcomes of existing techniques for MIE with robotic assisted approaches. Methods: Utilizing a prospective esophagectomy database we identified patients who underwent (MIE) via Ivor Lewis(TT), transhiatal(TH) or robotic assisted Ivor Lewis(RAIL) techniques. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics and complications were analyzed via ANOVA, Chi-Square, and Fisher Exact where appropriate. Results: We identified 302 patients who underwent MIE: TT 95(31.5%), TH 63(20.8%), and RAIL 144(47.7%) with a mean age of 65±9.6. The length of operation was longer in the RAIL: TT(299±87), TH(231±65), RAIL(409±104 minutes), p < 0.001. However the EBL was lower in the RAIL patients: TT(189±188ml), TH(242±380ml), RAIL(155±107ml), p = 0.03. Conversion to open was also lower in the RAIL group: TT 7(7.4%), TH 8(12.7%), RAIL 0, p < 0.001. The R0 resection rate and lymph node (LN) harvest also favored the RAIL cohort :TT 86(93.5%), TH 60(96.8%), and RAIL 144(100%), p = 0.01. LN:TT 14±7, TH 9±6, and RAIL 20±9, p < 0.001. The overall morbidity was lower in RAIL patients: TT 29(30.5%), TH 39(61.9%), RAIL 34(23.6%), p < 0.001. Mortality was lower in the TT and RAIL approaches compared to TH but was not significant: TT 2 (2.1%), TH 2 (3.2%), and RAIL 2 (1.4%), p = 0.6. Conclusions: RAIL demonstrates lower EBL, conversion to open, and morbidity than other MIE techniques. Additionally the oncologic outcomes measured by R0 resections and LN harvest also favored the patients who underwent RAIL.

scholarly journals Ivor Lewis robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: different approaches

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 77-77
Author(s):  
Matthew C. Black ◽  
Nicholas R. Hess ◽  
Olugbenga T. Okusanya ◽  
James D. Luketich ◽  
Inderpal S. Sarkaria
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy

scholarly journals Technical details of the abdominal part during full robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix Berlth ◽  
Carolina Mann ◽  
Eren Uzun ◽  
Evangelos Tagkalos ◽  
Edin Hadzijusufovic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Optimal Setting ◽  
Thoracic Part ◽  
Technical Details

Abstract The full robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is an upcoming approach in the treatment of esophageal and junctional cancer. Potential benefits are seen in angulated precise maneuvers in the abdominal part as well as in the thoracic part, but due to the novelty of this approach the optimal setting of the trocars, the instruments and the operating setting is still under debate. Hereafter, we present a technical description of the ‘Mainz technique’ of the abdominal part of RAMIE carried out as Ivor Lewis procedure. Postoperative complication rate and duration of the abdominal part of 100 consecutive patients from University Medical Center in Mainz are illustrated. In addition, the abdominal phase of the full RAMIE is discussed in general.

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 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