Robotic Intraoperative Tracheobronchial Repair during Minimally Invasive 3-Stage Esophagectomy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Marano A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8038889 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Esophageal cancer is the eight most common cancer in the world and surgical resection remains the gold standard not only in providing the optimal chance for cure but also the best palliation for dysphagia. Esophagectomy is a complex operation and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality that are reported as 23-50% and 2-8% in western country. At the moment no gold standard techniques exist for esophagectomy. The choice of the technique depends on several factors; location of tumor and surgeon's experience are probably the most relevant. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), performed in high volume centers, has shown to reduce the rate of complications with the same oncological outcome as open esophagectomy. The addition of robotic technique to MIE is relatively new and is gaining widespread acceptance. Robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is safe and feasible, and its short-term results are comparable to conventional MIE. Randomized studies are needed to assess if there is any real benefit associated to the use of the robotic approach.
| S-EPMC5639027 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10579864 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Minimally invasive esophagectomy may improve some perioperative outcomes over open approaches; effects on quality of life are less clear. METHODS:A prospective trial of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) and open esophagectomy was initiated, measuring quality of life via the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophageal and Brief Pain Inventory. Mixed generalized linear models assessed associations between quality of life scores over time and by surgery type. RESULTS:In total, 106 patients underwent open esophagectomy; 64 underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (98% RAMIE). The groups did not differ in age, sex, comorbidities, histologic subtype, stage, or induction treatment (P = .42 to P > .95). Total Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophageal scores were lower at 1 month (P < .001), returned to near baseline by 4 months, and did not differ between groups (P = .83). Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity (P = .007) and interference (P = .004) were lower for RAMIE. RAMIE had lower estimated blood loss (250 vs 350 cm3; P < .001), shorter length of stay (9 vs 11 days; P < .001), fewer intensive care unit admissions (8% vs 20%; P = .033), more lymph nodes harvested (25 vs 22; P = .05), and longer surgical time (6.4 vs 5.4 hours; P < .001). Major complications (39% for RAMIE vs 52% for open esophagectomy; P > .95), anastomotic leak (3% vs 9%; P = .41), and 90-day mortality (2% vs 4%; P = .85) did not differ between groups. Pulmonary (14% vs 34%; P = .014) and infectious (17% vs 36%; P = .029) complications were lower for RAMIE. CONCLUSIONS:RAMIE is associated with lower immediate postoperative pain severity and interference and decreased pulmonary and infectious complications. Ongoing data accrual will assess mid-term and long-term outcomes in this cohort.
| S-EPMC6774254 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7455468 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRobotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is a safe alternative to open esophagectomy (OE). However, differences in quality of life (QOL) after these procedures remain unclear. We previously reported short-term QOL outcomes after RAMIE and OE and describe here our results from 2 years of follow-up.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, nonrandomized trial of patients with esophageal cancer undergoing transthoracic resection by RAMIE or OE at a single institution. The primary outcomes were patient-reported QOL, measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophageal (FACT-E), and pain, measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Generalized linear models were used to assess the relationship between QOL outcomes and surgery cohort. P values were adjusted (P-adj) within each model using the false discovery rate correction.ResultsEsophagectomy was performed in 170 patients (106 OE and 64 RAMIE). The groups did not differ significantly by any measured clinicopathologic variables. After covariates were controlled for, FACT-E scores were higher in the RAMIE cohort than in the OE cohort (parameter estimate [PE], 6.13; P-adj = .051). RAMIE was associated with higher esophageal cancer subscale (PE, 2.72; P-adj = .022) and emotional well-being (PE, 1.25; P-adj = .016) scores. BPI pain severity scores were lower in the RAMIE cohort than in the OE cohort (PE, -0.56; P-adj = .005), but pain interference scores did not differ significantly between groups (P-adj = .11).ConclusionsDuring 2 years of follow-up, RAMIE was associated with improved patient-reported QOL, including esophageal symptoms, emotional well-being, and decreased pain, compared with OE.
| S-EPMC9425152 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In recent decades, robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been increasingly adopted for patients with esophageal cancer (EC) or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). However, concerns regarding its costs compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) have emerged. This study examined outcomes and costs of RAMIE versus total MIE in 128 patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for EC/GEJ at our department between 2017 and 2021. Surgical costs were higher for RAMIE (EUR 12,370 vs. EUR 10,059, p < 0.001). Yet, median daily (EUR 2023 vs. EUR 1818, p = 0.246) and total costs (EUR 30,510 vs. EUR 29,180, p = 0.460) were comparable. RAMIE showed a lower incidence of postoperative pneumonia (8% vs. 25%, p = 0.029) and a trend towards shorter hospital stays (15 vs. 17 days, p = 0.205), which may have equalized total costs. Factors independently associated with higher costs included readmission to the intensive care unit (hazard ratio [HR] = 7.0), length of stay (HR = 13.5), anastomotic leak (HR = 17.0), and postoperative pneumonia (HR = 5.4). In conclusion, RAMIE does not impose an additional financial burden. This suggests that RAMIE may be considered as a valid alternative approach for esophagectomy. Attention to typical cost factors can enhance postoperative care across surgical methods.
| S-EPMC10778089 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was first introduced in the 1990s. Currently, it is a widely accepted surgical approach for the treatment of esophageal cancer, as it is an oncologically sound procedure; its advantages when compared to open procedures, including reduction in postoperative complications, reduction in the length of hospital stay, and improvement in quality of life, are well documented. However, debates are still ongoing about the safety and efficacy of MIE. The present review focuses on some of the current issues related to conventional MIE and robot-assisted MIE based on evidence from the current literature.
| S-EPMC7409881 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10405085 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeRobotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has become one standard approach for the operative treatment of esophageal tumors at specialized centers. Here, we report the results of a prospective multicenter registry for standardized RAMIE.MethodsThe German da Vinci Xi registry trial included all consecutive patients who underwent RAMIE at five tertiary university centers between Oct 17, 2017, and Jun 5, 2020. RAMIE was performed according to a standard technique using an intrathoracic circular stapled esophagogastrostomy.ResultsA total of 220 patients were included. The median age was 64 years. Total minimally invasive RAMIE was accomplished in 85.9%; hybrid resection with robotic-assisted thoracic approach was accomplished in an additional 11.4%. A circular stapler size of ≥28 mm was used in 84%, and the median blood loss and operative time were 200 (IQR: 80-400) ml and 425 (IQR: 335-527) min, respectively. The rate of anastomotic leakage was 13.2% (n=29), whereas the two centers with >70 cases each had rates of 7.0% and 12.0%. Pneumonia occurred in 19.5% of patients, and the 90-day mortality was 3.6%. Cumulative sum analysis of the operative time indicated the end of the learning curve after 22 cases.ConclusionsHigh-quality multicenter registry data confirm that RAMIE is a safe procedure and can be reproduced with acceptable leak rates in a multicenter setting. The learning curve is comparably low for experienced robotic surgeons.
| S-EPMC9283356 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to assess the feasibility, efficacy and safety of McKeown surgery with vagal-sparing using minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).MethodsMcKeown surgery with vagal-sparing technique using MIE was adopted on patients diagnosed with resectable esophageal cancer. From June 2020 to January 2021, a total of 20 patients from the Department of Thoracic Surgery of the National Clinical Research Center for Cancer were enrolled.ResultsThe study group included 17 (85%) males and 3 (15%) females, with an average age of 62.6 (±7.1) years. The most common tumor location was lower thoracic esophagus (n=9, 45%), followed by middle thoracic esophagus (n=8, 40%) and upper thoracic esophagus (n=3, 15%). Nine (45%) patients had T1b disease, followed by T2 (n=8, 40%), T1a (n=2, 10%), and Tis (n=1, 5%). The average operation time was 221.5 (±61.2) minutes. Postoperative complications were as follow: 2 (10%) with hoarseness, 2 (10%) with pulmonary infection, 1 (5%) with arrhythmia, 1 (5%) with anastomotic leakage, 1 (5%) with delayed gastric emptying, 1 (5%) with pleural effusion, and 1 (5%) with diarrhea. Dumping syndrome, cholestasis, and chylothorax were not observed, and there was no perioperative death.ConclusionsMIE with vagus nerve preservation is a feasible and safe technique, with the possibility to be an alternative for esophageal carcinoma. Further study is needed to explore the functional outcome of preserving vagus nerve.
| S-EPMC9011232 | biostudies-literature