213 CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF ROBOTIC ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR THORACIC ESOPHAGEAL CANCER

Nowadays many patients with esophageal cancer are treated with thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) with precise mediastinal lymphadenectomy as a minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in Japan. These advanced endoscopic surgeries are believed to contribute to early postoperative recovery. More recently robotic esophagectomy (RE) appeared attractively. To date, however, there has been a very limited number of comparison studies to verify the benefits of RE for esophageal cancer, especially in Japan where squamous cell carcinoma is predominant. Methods We retrospectively compared the short-term outcomes between TE (n = 43) and RE (n = 19) which were performed in our institution between 2018 and 2020 to verify the clinical significance of RE. Preoperative background factors of the patients compared were almost identical between the two groups. Results The operative time was longer in the RE group than in the OE group, whereas blood loss was equivalent between the two groups. There was no significant differences in the number of dissected mediastinal lymph nodes between the TE and RE groups (33+/−15 vs 29+/−11). The incidence of postoperative recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy was markedly less in the RE group than the TE group (5.2% vs. 18.6%). Moreover, the incidence of postoperative pneumonia also tended to be less in the RE group than in the TE group (5.2% vs. 11.6%). There were no operative mortality in the two groups. Conclusion Our results suggest that RE is comparable with conventional TE in terms of short-term outcome after surgery, and beneficial to technically reduce the recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy as a promising MIE.

Robotic Esophagectomy. A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes

Background: Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy is demonstrated to be related with a facilitation in thoracoscopic procedure. To give an update on the state of art of robotic esophagectomy for cancr a systematic review with meta-analysis has been performed. Methods: a search of the studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic or open esophagectomy was performed trough the medical libraries, with the search string “robotic and (oesophagus OR esophagus OR esophagectomy OR oesophagectomy)”. Outcomes were: postoperative complications rate (anastomotic leakage, bleeding, wound infection, pneumonia, recurrent laryngeal nerves paralysis, chylotorax, mortality), intraoperative outcomes (mean blood loss, operative time and conversion), oncologic outcomes (harvested nodes, R0 resection, recurrence) and recovery outcomes (length of hospital stay). Results: Robotic approach is superior to open surgery in terms of blood loss p = 0.001, wound infection rate, p = 0.002, pneumonia rate, p = 0.030 and mean number of harvested nodes, p < 0.0001 and R0 resection rate, p = 0.043. Similarly, robotic approach is superior to conventional laparoscopy in terms of mean number of harvested nodes, p = 0.001 pneumonia rate, p = 0.003. Conclusions: robotic surgery could be considered superior to both open surgery and conventional laparoscopy. These encouraging results should promote the diffusion of the robotic surgery, with the creation of randomized trials to overcome selection bias.