Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18,187 patients
verfasst von:
Rui Perry, José Pedro Barbosa, Isabel Perry, José Barbosa
The role of robotic surgery in the curative-intent treatment of esophageal cancer patients is yet to be defined. To compare short-term outcomes between conventional minimally invasive (cMIE) and robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in esophageal cancer patients. PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were systematically searched. The included studies compared short-term outcomes between cMIE and RAMIE. Individual risk of bias was calculated using the MINORS and RoB2 scales. There were no statistically significant differences between RAMIE and cMIE regarding conversion to open procedure, mean number of harvested lymph nodes in the mediastinum, abdomen and along the right recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN), 30- and 90-day mortality rates, chyle leakage, RLN palsy as well as cardiac and infectious complication rates. Estimated blood loss (MD − 71.78 mL, p < 0.00001), total number of harvested lymph nodes (MD 2.18 nodes, p < 0.0001) and along the left RLN (MD 0.73 nodes, p = 0.03), pulmonary complications (RR 0.70, p = 0.001) and length of hospital stay (MD − 3.03 days, p < 0.0001) are outcomes that favored RAMIE. A significantly shorter operating time (MD 29.01 min, p = 0.004) and a lower rate of anastomotic leakage (RR 1.23, p = 0.0005) were seen in cMIE. RAMIE has indicated to be a safe and feasible alternative to cMIE, with a tendency towards superiority in blood loss, lymph node yield, pulmonary complications and length of hospital stay. There was significant heterogeneity among studies for some of the outcomes measured. Further studies are necessary to confirm these results and overcome current limitations.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Introduction
Esophageal cancer is currently ranked seventh, globally, in terms of incidence, among cancer cases. It is also the sixth leading cause of cancer-related deaths, being responsible for 1 in every 18 cancer deaths in 2020. Histologically, the incidence of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) has been in constant decline due to a change in economic gains, dietary regimes, and tobacco consumption—all major risk factors for esophageal cancer. Therefore, we are witnessing a shift in the histopathological subtypes, leading to an increase in the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (AC) worldwide [1].
In spite of poor prognosis and long-term survival, the milestone of the disease’s primary management is currently set at radical esophagectomy and extended lymphadenectomy with previous eventual neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy [2‐6]. Its surgical approach underwent a paradigm change from open thoracotomy and laparotomy to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (cMIE), combining both thoracoscopy and laparoscopy [3]. This technique offers a decrease in total complication rates, wound infection rates, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, resulting in an improvement in both morbidity and mortality postoperatively [7‐11]. Nonetheless, cMIE is not without limitations. Restricted movement of instruments, decreasing dexterity, prove to be technically complex and demanding, requiring a high number of patients to complete a surgeon’s learning curve [12, 13].
Anzeige
Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) was first introduced in 2003 [14] and has since gradually proved to overcome some of cMIE’s limitations. Accounting for its articulated instruments, with 7 degrees of freedom, tremor filtering systems and improved magnification, precise dissection along narrower spaces is made simpler to surgeons [15, 16]. Whether these advantages represent better short- and long-term outcomes to esophageal cancer patients is still unclear.
Recently, several systematic reviews and meta-analyses reported RAMIE to be a safe and feasible alternative to cMIE in the treatment of esophageal cancer patients. RAMIE was associated with a tendency of longer operating time, less estimated blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay. RAMIE also yielded a larger number of lymph nodes and had lower rates of pulmonary complications when compared to cMIE [17‐24].
Therefore, with the aim of analyzing RAMIE’s current contribution to the surgical approach of esophageal cancer patients, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis, assessing recent observational clinical studies (OCS) and randomized controlled trials (RCT), comparing short-term outcomes associated with RAMIE and cMIE. As robotic systems become more and more available worldwide and surgeons adhere to these, their technique upgrades over time. It becomes imperative to analyze the most recent data regarding this topic, as it is in constant evolution and rapidly changes as systems become more complex.
Materials and methods
This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement guidelines and was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) under registration No. CRD42023466345.
Anzeige
Literature search
Two reviewers independently conducted a literature search on the following online databases: PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science and Cochrane Library. The search query terms that were chosen to be used on PubMed were: (((laparoscopic esophagectomy) OR (minimally invasive esophagectomy) OR (video assisted esophagectomy) OR (thoracoscopic esophagectomy) OR ((esophagectomy[MeSH Terms]) AND ((laparoscopy[MeSH Terms]) OR (minimally invasive surgical procedures[MeSH Terms]) OR (surgery, video assisted[MeSH Terms]) OR (surgery, thoracoscopic[MeSH Terms]) OR (surgery, video assisted thoracoscopic[MeSH Terms])))) OR ((robotic esophagectomy) OR ((esophagectomy[MeSH Terms]) AND (robotics[MeSH Terms])))) AND (esophagus neoplasms[MeSH Terms]). Under the Web of Science database, the following query was used: [ALL = (laparoscopic esophagectomy) OR ALL = (minimally invasive esophagectomy) OR ALL = (video assisted esophagectomy) OR ALL = (thoracoscopic esophagectomy) OR ALL = (robotic esophagectomy)] AND [ALL = (esophagus cancer) OR ALL = (esophagus neoplasms)]. On Cochrane Library, the search entry was: laparoscopic esophagectomy in All Text OR minimally invasive esophagectomy in All Text OR thoracoscopic esophagectomy in All Text OR robotic esophagectomy in All Text AND esophagus neoplasms in All Text. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analysis were also consulted to identify additional studies of interest.
Eligibility criteria
After the search results were exported, duplicated studies were detected and excluded. The resulting articles were assessed based on their titles and abstracts. Observational clinical studies and randomized controlled trials were deemed as relevant for inclusion when perioperative and short-term outcomes of robot-assisted and conventional minimally invasive curative-intent esophagectomies for resectable esophageal cancer patients were compared.
When available, full text articles were obtained and reviewed independently by two authors. Any discrepancies in selection were resolved by consensus. Studies were excluded according to the following criteria: (1) articles whose surgical technique did not include a robot-assisted thoracic phase esophagectomy; (2) comparison to a hybrid approach, instead of a conventional minimally invasive one; (3) studies that only assessed long-term outcomes; (4) absence of a comparison with a conventional minimally invasive technique. Indexed abstract posters and presentations, editorials, comments, and letters were also excluded.
Data extraction
Eligible studies were assessed for data extraction by two independent reviewers. The following information was gathered from each study: author, publication year, country, study design and period, occurrence of propensity score matching (PSM), sample size, surgical procedure, histopathological tumor characteristics, neoadjuvant therapy prevalence, demographic data (age and sex) and short-term outcomes. Short-term outcomes were chosen according to previous systematic reviews: surgical outcomes—operating time, estimated blood loss, conversion to open procedure rate, harvested lymph nodes [total, mediastinal, abdominal, and along the left and right recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN)] and 30- and 90-day mortality rates; and postoperative outcomes—anastomotic leakage, chyle leakage, recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, pulmonary, cardiac and infectious complications and length of hospital stay (Tables 1, 2).
Table 1
Characteristics of studies included for analysis
No.
Author
Year
Country
Study design
Study period
PSM
Sample size
Surgical procedures
RAMIE
cMIE
1
Suda et al.
2012
Japan
OCS (P)
05.2009–08.2011
No
16
20
McKeown
2
Weksler et al.
2012
USA
OCS (R)
06.2008–10.2009
No
11
26
McKeown/Ivor-Lewis
3
Park et al.
2016
South Korea
OCS (R)
01.2006–06.2014
No
62
43
McKeown/Ivor-Lewis
4
Chao et al.
2018
China
OCS (R)
01.2013–05.2016
Yes
37
104
McKeown
5
Deng et al.
2018
China
OCS (P)
04.2016–01.2018
Yes
79
72
McKeown
6
He et al.
2018
China
OCS (R)
03.2016–12.2017
Yes
27
88
McKeown
7
Chen et al.
2019
China
OCS (R)
01.2016–01.2018
Yes
68
74
McKeown
8
Grimminger et al.
2019
Germany
OCS (P)
07.2015–08.2017
No
25
25
Ivor-Lewis
9
Motoyama et al.
2019
Japan
OCS (R)
12.2014–10.2018
No
21
38
NA
10
Zhang et al.
2019
China
OCS (R)
12.2014–06.2018
Yes
76
108
Ivor-Lewis
11
Chao et al.
2020
China
OCS (R)
06.2012–06.2017
No
39
67
McKeown
12
Gong et al.
2020
China
OCS (R)
01.2016–12.2018
No
91
144
McKeown
13
Meredith et al.
2020
USA
OCS (P)
1996–2016
No
144
95
Ivor-Lewis
14
Shirakawa et al.
2020
Japan
OCS (R)
11.2017–04.2019
Yes
66
90
NA
15
Tagkalos et al.
2020
Germany
OCS (P)
04.2016–04.2018
Yes
50
50
Ivor-Lewis
16
Yang et al.
2020
China
OCS (R)
11.2015–06.2018
Yes
280
372
McKeown
17
Ali et al.
2021
USA
OCS (R)
2010–2016
No
1543
5118
NA
18
Duan et al.
2021
China
OCS (R)
06.2017–12.2019
No
109
75
McKeown
19
Ninomiya et al.
2021
Japan
OCS (R)
04.2014–08.2020
Yes
30
30
NA
20
Oshikiri et al
2021
Japan
OCS (P)
2010–2020
Yes
51
353
McKeown
21
Tsunoda et al
2021
Japan
OCS (R)
01.2015–04.2020
Yes
49
85
McKeown/Ivor-Lewis
22
Balasubramanian et al
2022
India
OCS (R)
01.2015–09.2018
Yes
25
90
McKeown/Ivor-Lewis
23
Dezube et al.
2022
USA
OCS (R)
05.2016–08.2020
No
70
277
McKeown/Ivor-Lewis
24
Fujita et al.
2022
Japan
OCS (R)
01.2020–06.2021
Yes
55
134
NA
25
Kulkarni et al.
2022
India
OCS (R)
01.2016–12.2018
Yes
25
49
McKeown
26
Morimoto et al.
2022
Japan
OCS (R)
04.2018–03.2020
No
22
65
McKeown
27
Trung et al.
2022
Vietnam
OCS (R)
08.2018–04.2021
Yes
31
126
McKeown
28
van der Sluis et al.
2022
Germany
OCS (R)
01.2008–08.2019
No
123
91
McKeown/Ivor-Lewis
29
Yang et al.
2022
China
RCT
08.2017–12.2019
No
181
177
McKeown
30
Chouliaras et al.
2023
USA
OCS (R)
07.2013–11.2020
Yes
67
72
Ivor-Lewis
31
Jiang et al.
2023
China
OCS (R)
01.2016–01.2021
No
80
171
McKeown
32
Khaitan et al.
2023
USA
OCS (R)
2015–2019
Yes
1320
3524
McKeown/Ivor-Lewis
33
Narendra et al.
2023
Australia
OCS (R)
2005–2022
No
53
50
McKeown/Ivor-Lewis
34
Sun et al.
2023
China
OCS (R)
12.2020–11.2021
Yes
45
153
McKeown
35
Turner et al.
2023
USA
OCS (R)
2016–2020
No
234
926
McKeown/Ivor-Lewis
No.
Author
Year
Tumor histology
Neoadjuvant therapy
MINORS
RAMIE
cMIE
SCC, n
SCC, %
AC, n
AC, %
SCC, n
SCC, %
AC, n
AC, %
RAMIE, n
RAMIE, %
MIE, n
MIE, %
1
Suda et al.
2012
16
100.00
0
0.00
20
100.00
0
0.00
6
37.50
17
85.00
22
2
Weksler et al.
2012
0
0.00
10
90.91
3
11.54
23
88.46
4
36.36
10
38.46
21
3
Park et al.
2016
62
100.00
0
0.00
43
100.00
0
0.00
8
12.90
4
9.30
21
4
Chao et al.
2018
37
100.00
0
0.00
104
100.00
0
0.00
17
45.95
52
50.00
21
5
Deng et al.
2018
79
100.00
0
0.00
72
100.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
22
6
He et al.
2018
23
85.19
NA
80
90.91
NA
0
0.00
0
0.00
21
7
Chen et al.
2019
68
100.00
0
0.00
74
100.00
0
0.00
28
41.18
17
22.97
21
8
Grimminger et al.
2019
7
28.00
18
72.00
9
36.00
16
64.00
10
40.00
9
36.00
21
9
Motoyama et al.
2019
21
100.00
0
0.00
38
100.00
0
0.00
12
57.14
19
50.00
21
10
Zhang et al.
2019
74
97.37
0
0.00
107
99.07
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
21
11
Chao et al.
2020
38
97.44
1
2.56
65
97.01
2
2.99
39
100.00
67
100.00
21
12
Gong et al.
2020
86
94.51
NA
134
93.06
NA
20
21.98
28
19.44
21
13
Meredith et al.
2020
NA
NA
NA
NA
112
77.78
73
76.84
21
14
Shirakawa et al.
2020
NA
NA
NA
NA
30
45.45
51
56.67
20
15
Tagkalos et al.
2020
NA
NA
NA
NA
27
54.00
22
44.00
22
16
Yang et al.
2020
280
100.00
0
0.00
372
100.00
0
0.00
30
10.71
50
13.44
21
17
Ali et al.
2021
NA
NA
NA
NA
1147
74.34
3462
67.64
20
18
Duan et al.
2021
109
100.00
0
0.00
75
100.00
0
0.00
12
11.01
10
13.33
21
19
Ninomiya et al.
2021
NA
NA
NA
NA
20
66.67
25
83.33
19
20
Oshikiri et al
2021
45
88.24
6
11.76
325
92.07
28
7.93
30
58.82
246
69.69
22
21
Tsunoda et al
2021
46
93.88
2
4.08
81
95.29
4
4.71
29
59.18
57
67.06
21
22
Balasubramanian et al
2022
19
76.00
6
24.00
58
64.44
32
35.56
18
72.00
51
56.67
21
23
Dezube et al.
2022
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21
24
Fujita et al.
2022
NA
NA
NA
NA
38
69.09
95
70.90
21
25
Kulkarni et al.
2022
15
60.00
10
40.00
40
81.63
9
18.37
17
68.00
43
87.76
21
26
Morimoto et al.
2022
21
95.45
1
4.55
63
96.92
2
3.08
10
45.55
36
55.39
21
27
Trung et al.
2022
31
100.00
0
0.00
126
100.00
0
0.00
NA
NA
19
28
van der Sluis et al.
2022
20
16.26
85
69.11
24
26.37
51
56.04
105
85.37
60
65.93
20
29
Yang et al.
2022
181
100.00
0
0.00
177
100.00
0
0.00
39
21.55
37
20.90
NA
30
Chouliaras et al.
2023
7
10.45
60
89.55
5
6.94
67
93.06
54
80.60
64
88.89
21
31
Jiang et al.
2023
80
100.00
0
0.00
171
100.00
0
0.00
80
100.00
171
100.00
21
32
Khaitan et al.
2023
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21
33
Narendra et al.
2023
NA
NA
NA
NA
40
75.47
142
59.17
20
34
Sun et al.
2023
41
91.11
1
2.22
139
90.85
7
4.58
21
46.67
85
55.56
21
35
Turner et al.
2023
NA
NA
NA
NA
163
69.67
640
69.11
21
Table 2
Patients' demographics
No.
Author
Year
Age (RAMIE)
Age (MIE)
Sex (RAMIE)
Sex (MIE)
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
M
F
Pt
M
F
Pt
1
Suda et al.
2012
67.25
9.33
64.5
7.76
15
1
16
15
5
20
2
Weksler et al.
2012
58.7
8.5
64.3
11.3
8
3
11
20
6
26
3
Park et al.
2016
64.3
8
66.2
7.4
57
5
62
40
3
43
4
Chao et al.
2018
58.6
10.13
54.1
7.71
34
3
37
97
7
104
5
Deng et al.
2018
61.6
7
61.2
8.9
64
15
79
54
18
72
6
He et al.
2018
61
8
62.9
8.3
20
7
27
61
27
88
7
Chen et al.
2019
61.9
8.5
61.3
8.2
53
15
68
59
15
74
8
Grimminger et al.
2019
61.1
11.1
63
8.7
22
3
25
19
6
25
9
Motoyama et al.
2019
61.5
8.47
64
6.09
19
2
21
32
6
38
10
Zhang et al.
2019
61.8
7.7
61.3
7.7
59
17
76
85
23
108
11
Chao et al.
2020
57.41
8.59
54.55
7.93
35
4
39
65
2
67
12
Gong et al.
2020
60.04
NA
60.22
NA
78
13
91
130
14
144
13
Meredith et al.
2020
66
10
62
9
113
31
144
81
14
95
14
Shirakawa et al.
2020
66.67
10.61
67
9.04
56
10
66
74
16
90
15
Tagkalos et al.
2020
62
NA
64
NA
NA
NA
16
Yang et al.
2020
63.1
7.3
63.9
7.8
230
50
280
302
70
372
17
Ali et al.
2021
63.61
9.47
63.74
9.32
1287
256
1543
4235
883
5118
18
Duan et al.
2021
60
6.1
61.1
6.6
90
19
109
65
10
75
19
Ninomiya et al.
2021
65
7.84
63
6.87
22
8
30
23
7
30
20
Oshikiri et al.
2021
64.75
7.77
60.75
9.43
34
17
51
301
52
353
21
Tsunoda et al.
2021
64.25
9.62
64
8.6
43
6
49
63
22
85
22
Balasubramanian et al.
2022
61.88
9.83
64.51
12.21
17
8
25
52
38
90
23
Dezube et al.
2022
66.5
8.01
60.5
10.56
57
13
70
226
51
277
24
Fujita et al.
2022
68.9
10.1
68.8
7.4
42
13
55
111
23
134
25
Kulkarni et al.
2022
59.2
8.3
56.1
11.1
13
12
25
26
23
49
26
Morimoto et al.
2022
67
6
67
8
19
3
22
53
12
65
27
Trung et al.
2022
59
6.4
57.9
7.7
31
0
31
123
3
126
28
van der Sluis et al.
2022
59.5
11.67
65
8.11
107
16
123
67
24
91
29
Yang et al.
2022
62
5.92
60.75
6.12
156
25
181
150
27
177
30
Chouliaras et al.
2023
60.3
10.28
64.9
8.65
57
10
67
64
8
72
31
Jiang et al.
2023
63.67
6.79
62.33
7.48
68
12
80
146
25
171
32
Khaitan et al.
2023
NA
NA
1086
234
1320
2820
704
3524
33
Narendra et al.
2023
NA
NA
44
9
53
194
46
240
34
Sun et al.
2023
64.25
2.72
64
2.08
30
15
45
118
35
153
35
Turner et al.
2023
64.67
9.7
64.67
9.65
198
36
234
759
167
926
Quality assessment
The risk of bias and study quality assessment was performed using the MINORS (Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies) scale [25] in the observational clinical studies eligible for analysis. As for randomized controlled trials, the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool (RoB2) [26] was used. It was conducted by two authors, and any disagreements were solved through discussion. MINORS scoring system comprises 12 items, 8 methodological and 4 additional criteria applied to comparative studies. In regards to methodology, studies were scored 0 (not reported), 1 (reported but inadequate) or 2 (reported and adequate) points, according to the description of a clearly stated aim, inclusion of consecutive patients, involvement of a prospective collection of data, existence of endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study, performance of an unbiased assessment of the study endpoint, admittance of a follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study, registration of a loss to follow-up below 5% and a prospective calculation of the study size. The 4 additional criteria applied to comparative studies used the same scoring system, assessing the existence of an adequate and contemporary control group, without confounding factors, and the presence of an adequate statistical analysis (Table 1 and Supplementary Table 1).
Statistical analysis
The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager (Version 5.4.1).
Results related to continuous outcomes were presented as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), by using the generic inverse variance method. Regarding dichotomous outcomes, results were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI, also using the generic inverse variance method. There were studies that reported their outcomes as median and range. In these cases, mean and standard deviation were estimated using a method described by Wan et al. [27]. Statistical significance was assessed using an alpha (α) level of 0.05. Heterogeneity was explored using the I2 measure and Cochran’s Q test, using a significance cutoff point of 0.10. We applied a random effects model due to the clinical heterogeneity of the included studies. PSM data were also analyzed to eliminate possible causes of heterogeneity. Publication bias among included studies was investigated by using funnel plots, provided as Supplementary File 1.
Results
Study selection
The conducted literature search of PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library resulted in 4567 articles selected for review. Duplicated studies were excluded, resulting in 3003 records whose titles and abstracts were screened. Upon review, 72 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. From these, 37 studies were excluded according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Previous systematic reviews yielded 3 additional studies after manual screening of relevant references. Therefore, 35 full-text studies were included for quality assessment and analysis (Fig. 1). Demographic data and details from the included studies are presented in Table 1. OCS were more prevalent, with 34 results [28‐61], and 1 RCT [62] was also included. A total of 18,187 participants were analyzed, of which 5205 underwent RAMIE, and 12,982 were operated under cMIE.
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram
×
Anzeige
Quality assessment
All included studies revealed a fair methodological quality. The median score in the MINORS scale for OCS was 21, ranging from 19 to 22 points. As for the included RCT, the RoB2 tool calculated a low risk of bias judgement (Table 1 and Supplementary Table 1).
Surgical outcomes
Operating time
The conducted meta-analysis gathered 26 studies which reported each operating time. The test for overall effect concluded that cMIE has a significantly shorter operating time when compared to RAMIE (MD 29.01, p = 0.004 [95% CI 9.37, 48.66], I2 = 97%, p < 0.00001). Mean operating time was 395.72 min in the cMIE group and 424.91 min in the RAMIE group (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2
Meta-analysis of surgical outcomes: a operating time; b estimated blood loss; c harvested lymph nodes, TOTAL; d harvested lymph nodes, left RLN
×
Estimated blood loss
Estimated blood loss was assessed and measured in 25 studies. It has appeared to be significantly less in RAMIE when compared to cMIE (MD − 71.78, p < 0.00001 [95% CI − 96.24, − 47.33], I2 = 97%, p < 0.00001). Mean estimated blood loss was 209.68 mL in the RAMIE group and 387.18 mL in the cMIE group (Fig. 2).
Conversion to open procedure rate
This outcome was included in 18 studies and did not show any statistically significant difference between the two groups (RR 0.64, p = 0.14 [95% CI 0.36, 1.16], I2 = 80%, p < 0.00001). Conversion to open procedure had a rate of 4.87% (197/4047) in the RAMIE group and of 8.22% (857/10431) in the cMIE group.
Harvested lymph nodes, TOTAL
The total number of harvested lymph nodes during the procedures was recorded and presented in 25 studies. Mean total number of harvested lymph nodes in the RAMIE group was 28.89 and 26.61 in the cMIE group. Their difference was statistically significant, favoring RAMIE (MD 2.18, p < 0.0001 [95% CI 1.15, 3.21], I2 = 78%, p < 0.00001) (Fig. 2).
Harvested lymph nodes, MEDIASTINAL
The number of mediastinal harvested lymph nodes was measured in 13 studies. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (MD − 0.76, p = 0.46 [95% CI − 2.77, 1.25], I2 = 91%, p < 0.00001). Mean number of mediastinal harvested lymph nodes was 18.72 in the RAMIE group and 19.61 in the cMIE group.
Harvested lymph nodes, ABDOMINAL
This outcome was reported in 10 studies. The mean number of abdominal harvested lymph nodes was 9.38 in the RAMIE group and 8.85 in the cMIE group, showing no statistically significant difference between these groups (MD 0.13, p = 0.66 [95% CI − 0.47, 0.73], I2 = 58%, p = 0.01).
Harvested lymph nodes, LEFT RLN
Harvested lymph nodes along the left RLN were assessed in 12 studies. The mean yield of these nodes was 3.56 in the RAMIE group and 2.85 in the cMIE group, favoring RAMIE (MD 0.73, p = 0.03 [95% CI 0.06, 1.39], I2 = 93%, p < 0.00001) (Fig. 2).
Harvested lymph nodes, RIGHT RLN
As for the harvested lymph nodes along the right RLN, these were included in 9 articles, without evidence of a statistically significant difference between the two groups (MD 0.12, p = 0.53 [95% CI − 0.26, 0.51], I2 = 86%, p < 0.00001). Mean yield of these nodes was of 2.23 in the RAMIE group and of 2.12 in the cMIE group.
30-day mortality rate
Twenty studies reported their 30-day mortality rate for each procedure, being 1.63% (44/2707) in the RAMIE group and 1.87% (117/6244) in the cMIE group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (RR 1.03, p = 0.88 [95% CI 0.73, 1.44], I2 = 0%, p = 0.53).
90-Day Mortality rate
This outcome was measured in 18 studies. The rate of 90-day mortality was 3.55% (106/2987) in the RAMIE group and 4.84% (336/6946) in the cMIE group, showing no statistically significant difference between the two groups (RR 0.95, p = 0.66 [95% CI 0.77, 1.18], I2 = 0%, p = 0.93).
Postoperative outcomes
Anastomotic leakage
Anastomotic leakage was measured and recorded in 28 studies. The rate of this complication was 12.47% (391/3136) in the RAMIE group and 11.43% (785/6866) in the cMIE group, favoring cMIE (RR 1.23, p = 0.0005 [95% CI 1.09, 1.38], I2 = 0%, p = 0.64) (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3
Meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes: a anastomotic leakage; b pulmonary complications; c length of hospital stay
×
Chyle leakage
Nineteen studies reported this outcome. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (RR 1.07, p = 0.74 [95% CI 0.72, 1.60], I2 = 13%, p = 0.30). The rate of chyle leakage was 2.82% (69/2443) in the RAMIE group and 3.84% (197/5135) in the cMIE group.
Recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy
RLN palsy was included in 23 studies. The rate of this event was 8.94% (237/2652) in the RAMIE group and 7.63% (423/5541) in the cMIE group, with no statistically significant difference between the two (RR 0.96, p = 0.62 [95% CI 0.82, 1.13], I2 = 7%, p = 0.36).
Pulmonary complications
Pulmonary complications were assessed in 29 studies. The rate of this complication was 20.13% (641/3185) in the RAMIE group and 22.20% (1547/6969) in the cMIE group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (RR 0.89, p = 0.10 [95% CI 0.77, 1.02], I2 = 18%, p = 0.20) (Fig. 3).
Cardiac complications
Cardiac complications were included in 20 studies. The rate of this complication was 14.02% (365/2604) in the RAMIE group and 15.74% (823/5228) in the cMIE group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (RR 1.01, p = 0.88 [95% CI 0.86, 1.19], I2 = 3%, p = 0.42).
Infectious complications
Seventeen studies reported infectious complications. The rate of this event was 2.53% (31/1223) in the RAMIE group and 3.18% (50/1572) in the cMIE group. These results showed no statistically significant difference between them (RR 0.97, p = 0.92 [95% CI 0.61, 1.56], I2 = 0%, p = 0.52).
Length of hospital stay
This outcome was included in 26 studies. The mean length of hospital stay was of 18.57 days in the RAMIE group and 33.11 days in the cMIE group. Meta-analysis favors RAMIE (MD − 3.03, p < 0.0001 [95% CI − 4.51, − 1.54], I2 = 96%, p < 0.00001) (Fig. 3).
Propensity Score Matching Analysis
Propensity Score Matching Analysis information is gathered under Table 3. It was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis for the 30-Day Mortality rate outcome, as only one event was recorded in the cMIE group, in one of the six included studies. RAMIE showed superiority over cMIE in estimated blood loss, total number of harvested lymph nodes along the left RLN, and over pulmonary complications. Regarding operating time, cMIE was able to be executed under a lower amount of time. The rest of the measured outcomes presented no statistically significant differences between the two groups.
Table 3
Propensity score matching results
Outcomes
No. of studies
No. of patients
Overall effect size (MD/RR)
95% CI of overall effect
p
Heterogeneity
RAMIE
cMIE
I2 (%)
p
Surgical outcomes
Operating time
13
776
805
41.37
13.95 to 68.78
0.003
96
<0.00001
Estimated blood loss
15
862
862
− 25.14
− 43.18 to − 7.11
0.006
81
<0.00001
Conversion to open procedure rate
10
637
637
0.44
0.02 to 9.30
0.6
68
0.08
Harvested lymph nodes, TOTAL
13
781
781
1.79
0.40 to 3.18
0.01
65
0.0005
Harvested lymph nodes, MEDIASTINAL
8
578
607
0.1
− 1.11 to 1.31
0.87
47
0.07
Harvested lymph nodes, ABDOMINAL
4
400
400
0.78
− 0.03 to 1.59
0.06
56
0.08
Harvested lymph nodes, LEFT RLN
5
312
312
0.95
0.04 to 1.86
0.04
90
<0.00001
Harvested lymph nodes, RIGHT RLN
4
195
195
0.15
− 0.15 to 0.46
0.33
18
0.3
30-day mortality rate
6
282
282
90-day mortality rate
8
537
537
0.68
0.25 to 1.86
0.45
0
0.9
Postoperative outcomes
Anastomotic leakage
14
837
837
0.89
0.67 to 1.19
0.44
0
0.78
Chyle leakage
9
598
598
0.88
0.42 to 1.86
0.74
0
0.95
Recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy
15
850
850
0.81
0.54 to 1.20
0.3
66
0.0002
Pulmonary complications
16
912
912
0.7
0.56 to 0.86
0.001
0
0.74
Cardiac complications
9
632
632
1.06
0.64 to 1.77
0.81
5
0.39
Infectious complications
8
591
591
1.03
0.46 to 2.24
0.93
0
0.87
Length of hospital stay
13
787
787
− 1.44
− 3.20 to 0.31
0.11
90
<0.00001
Discussion
This systematic review and meta-analysis directly compares relevant short-term outcomes between robot-assisted and conventional minimally invasive esophagectomies in esophageal cancer patients. Previous meta-analysis [17‐24] concluded that RAMIE is a superior surgical approach when compared to cMIE regarding blood loss, number of harvested lymph nodes, RLN palsy and pulmonary complications, while operating time is shorter in cMIE. Nonetheless, some of these results are also associated with a high percentage of heterogeneity among the studies, compromising their validity. With the publication of further data and literature, it became necessary to perform an updated meta-analysis to not only confirm the safety and feasibility of RAMIE, but also to establish new conclusions when compared to cMIE.
Our analysis concluded that both surgical approaches result in similar rates of conversion to open procedure, mean number of harvested lymph nodes in the mediastinum, abdomen and along the right RLN, 30- and 90-day mortality rates, chyle leakage, RLN palsy as well as cardiac and infectious complication rates.
Anzeige
A significantly shorter operating time and a lower rate of anastomotic leakage is seen in cMIE, while estimated blood loss, total number of harvested lymph nodes and along the left RLN, pulmonary complications and length of hospital stay are outcomes that favor RAMIE.
Surgical outcomes
Operating time
The mean operating time revealed to be around 29 min shorter in the cMIE group, when compared to RAMIE. This result is coherent with three previous meta-analysis [17, 18, 21]. There are two main reasons that explain a longer duration of surgical procedures with RAMIE.
Firstly, port setup, docking and repositioning of instruments and uninstallation of devices all account for extra time in an inexperienced surgical team. Secondly, most of the reviewed studies reported their data with surgeons that had not yet completed their learning curve in this specific type of surgery. Recent studies suggest that this learning curve is achieved in surgeons after 20–22 cases of successful RAMIE, with a previously vast experience in cMIE, attaining proficiency, lessening complications, and reducing operating time [59, 60].
Upon examination of our forest plot, we conclude that three of the included studies demonstrate that the robotic surgery group operated in a significantly shorter timeframe [42, 57, 62]. This is due to a docking time of only around 5 min in each of these scenarios and a fully experienced surgical team, both in assistants that perform equally in RAMIE and cMIE and also surgeons that have completed their learning curve. Therefore, it has been proven that once surgeons attain their proficiency with the equipment, RAMIE offers advantages in the manipulation of instruments and camera control that enable increased efficiency in the operation [62].
Analysis of PSM data from studies that performed this procedure leads us to a similar conclusion. The mean difference was larger, achieving over 41 min, favoring cMIE. Again, one of these studies [42] had statistically significant shorter operating times favoring RAMIE, explained by the same reasons.
Estimated blood loss
Our analysis suggests that RAMIE is associated with a reduction in estimated blood lost during the surgical procedures. The difference of blood loss between the two approaches is approximately 72 mL, favoring RAMIE, whose clinical significance may be residual. Previous meta-analyses present the same conclusion [17‐19]. This result accounts for a majority of included studies that show no statistically significant difference between the two groups, but with several outliers that describe major complications of episodical events in the cMIE group. Therefore, this conclusion is to be taken carefully, taking these factors into consideration and an elevated heterogeneity among studies.
Nonetheless, this difference may be explained due to RAMIE’s improved instrument dexterity navigating in the surgical field and its tremor filtering systems. Lymph node dissection is made easier, damaging less blood vessels along the procedure [19].
PSM data suggest an even smaller, but still significant difference. The mean difference between the two procedures is approximately 25 mL. Such a small amount of blood lost might not be clinically relevant to the patient’s morbidity perioperatively.
Conversion to open procedure rate
This outcome showed no statistically significant difference between RAMIE and cMIE. Three of the included studies had a higher rate of conversion to open procedure [40, 42, 43]. These were explained by all the advantages that the robotic system has to offer in attaining proficiency in the procedures. Aside from these studies, all others had comparable results, enhancing the need for further data on this topic.
Upon analysis of PSM information, the same conclusion is achieved. A wider population needs to be assessed in order to have more information regarding conversion.
Lymphadenectomy has become an essential element of the primary management of esophagectomies. Due to a narrow operative field, lymph node dissection is especially challenging along each of the RLNs, being the surgeon’s intent to harvest as many lymph nodes as possible, without damaging the RLN or adjacent structures. This procedure is important to both categorize the tumor according to the TNM classification, but also apply curative-intent treatment [19].
Harvested lymph nodes had statistically significant results in total numbers and in those that were yielded along the left RLN, both favoring the RAMIE group. Previous meta-analyses discuss similar findings [19, 23, 24]. Nonetheless, our results present high heterogeneity among studies, which leads to questions regarding the external validity of these findings.
The robotic group was favored in 8 of the 25 included studies when total lymph nodes dissected were recorded. The mean difference between the groups was of approximately two additional lymph nodes. Along the left RLN region, our search included 12 studies. Results also favored RAMIE, with five of these that individually favored the robotic approach. RAMIE yielded approximately one additional lymph node over cMIE. Lymph node count that were dissected in the mediastinum, abdomen, and along the right RLN did not show differences between the two groups. Improved anatomical dissection precision, featured in RAMIE, accounts for a larger number of lymph node yield in these regions. This is due to a magnified surgical field of view and improved imaging, with improved dexterity and flexibility of instruments and physiological tremor filtering systems. Regarding the left upper mediastinum, where the left RLN is dissected, the robotic approach is able to provide the surgeon with an upgraded vision and field of view, promoting the identification of the nerve. This, along with an improved posture and comfort when operating, enables the surgeon to have a greater ease of access to such a narrow and out of reach area like the left upper mediastinum.
A minimum of 15 lymph nodes necessary for accurate staging [63] was achieved in all studies, which reflects the quality of oncologic resection and staging. Whether these additional nodes using the RAMIE technique represent better long-term resection is still unclear. Clinically, a more relevant measure to be reported by authors would be the total number of positive lymph nodes harvested, as these directly influence the disease’s course of action and prognosis.
Patients that underwent neoadjuvant therapy before surgery often present with edema and fibrosis in the affected areas. In these patients, RAMIE performed particularly better than cMIE due to its advantageous features [62].
Studies that performed PSM showed similar results, further increasing evidence regarding RAMIE’s superiority in the dissection of lymph nodes during esophagectomies.
30- and 90-day mortality rates
Early mortality rates had no statistically significant differences between the two surgical approaches. The same conclusion was attained by previous meta-analyses [17, 18, 20‐24]. 30-day mortality rates are below 2% and 90-day rates are below 5% in both groups. These two indicators reflect greatly on the quality of surgery performed on esophageal cancer patients and the occurrence of major complications after the procedure [64].
Postoperative outcomes
Anastomotic and chyle leakage
Anastomotic leakage is one of the most impactful complications that may occur after an esophagectomy, as it leads to high rates of morbidity and mortality in such patients. Several important factors are highlighted when analyzing predisposing conditions that lead to this complication. Preoperatively, diseases that compromise the perfusion of the anastomosis are congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, diabetes, smoking, and hypertension. With regard specifically to the surgery, the anastomotic technique, the location of the anastomosis, the type of conduit and its location all contribute to the quality of the performed anastomosis and therefore influence its longevity [65].
In our study, cMIE had a statistically significant lower rate of anastomotic leakage. This is highly influenced by a single OCS that had a large study population from a national database [58]. One of their reported limitations is the lack of information regarding the anastomotic technique used in all procedures, which directly influences this outcome. Furthermore, this study did not exclude the surgical learning curve of minimally invasive operations, which is inherently accompanied by a higher rate of complications in such a critical phase of the surgery. If this study is removed from the analysis, results are no longer statistically significant, favoring no technique.
On the other hand, chyle leakage, another important factor in postoperative morbidity, did not favor any approach. Heterogeneity was low, and there was no selection bias upon funnel plot analysis.
Information from PSM studies corroborates these results, showing similar rates of anastomotic and chyle leakage.
Recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy
Thoracic surgeries, specifically esophagectomies, imply heavy esophageal manipulation and traction, which may damage RLN bilaterally. Neuropathy caused by stretching, compression, thermal and ischemic injury is a common complication that brings significant morbidity. Paralysis of the RLN leads to pulmonary complications, hoarseness, longer length of hospital stay, and long-term recovery, which in turn, deteriorate postoperative quality of life [66, 67].
Despite more extended lymph node dissection in RLNs in the robotic procedure, the occurrence of RLN palsy was similar in both groups. This result is also in accordance with previous meta-analyses [18‐22, 24]. Therefore, one may argue that with RAMIE’s improved manipulation and visualization features, it is possible to attain better lymph node yields without compromising RLN damage and paralysis. It is also possible that once surgeons complete their learning curves in the technique, the rate of this complication decreases. There is also a need for further studies and information that differentiate the extent of nerve injury, for further characterization. PSM data lead us to the same conclusion.
Pulmonary, cardiac and infectious complications
Overall complications greatly reflect both the immediate response to such a major surgery, but also the prognosis and long-term development of the disease [68]. It has been proven that these short-term complications directly influence tumor progression and long-term survival. Minimally invasive surgical approaches and multidisciplinary case management are successful in the prevention of such outcomes [69].
In our unmatched pool of data, there was a great tendency towards lower pulmonary complication rates in the RAMIE approach, with a low level of heterogeneity among studies. This may be explained by the recent advantages that RAMIE has brought. Improved magnification and dexterity in the surgical field provide a better visualization and manipulation of ligaments and fasciae [70]. Due to this, the avoidance of dissection of the vagus nerve and preservation of increased segments of pulmonary parenchyma are better achieved. The vagus nerve is responsible for the regulation of essential pulmonary functions and mechanisms. The cough reflex, mucous production, bronchus diameter and regulation of inflammation and edema are all regulated by the vagus nerve [71]. Therefore, vagotomy will decrease the action of these response mechanisms to esophagectomy’s aggression and inflammatory response [72], leading to an increase in the rate of pulmonary complications. RAMIE may be able to overcome this unintended result and reduce the incidence of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome and other complications. Cardiac and infectious complications had similar rates of occurrence in the two surgical techniques. Recent meta-analyses present similar results [17, 18, 20, 22‐24].
Analysis of PSM information further increase evidence of RAMIE’s superiority over cMIE in regards to pulmonary complications. There was a reduction of approximately 30% in the incidence of these complications. Conclusions regarding cardiac and infectious complications remained unaltered.
Length of hospital stay
Lower rates of postoperative complications directly influence a patient’s length of hospital stay after an esophagectomy [73]. As our results suggest a lower incidence of pulmonary complications in RAMIE patients, it is expected that those will require a shorter period of hospitalization.
Our analysis favors RAMIE to provide statistically significant shorter lengths of hospital stay, when compared to cMIE. Nonetheless, these results are to be taken with caution, as heterogeneity is high, and three studies [28, 46, 54] showed discrepant results when compared to the rest of the included ones. The calculated mean length of hospital stay was approximately 19 days in the RAMIE group and 33 days in the cMIE group. These are greatly influenced by Asian cultural and non-clinical factors that extend hospitalization further [74].
Upon analysis of PSM information, this difference is greatly attenuated and no longer statistically significant. The RAMIE group presented with a mean length of hospital stay of 17 days, and the cMIE group with 19 days. Some of the previous outlier cases are no longer taken into consideration and baseline patient characteristics are more similar. Nonetheless, there is still a high tendency towards a shorter length of hospital stay associated with the RAMIE procedure, which should be analyzed considering the context.
Limitations
Our study acknowledges some limitations which may compromise the analysis of the attained results. First, all but one of the included studies are observational clinical studies, most of these being retrospective non-randomized comparative studies. Even though all studies present an assessed low risk of bias, patient selection bias is inherently present due to several cultural, clinical, and non-clinical factors of the preferred surgical approach. Furthermore, this systematic review includes studies that gather data from large national databases, from multiple institutions and different managing software. This results in a non-uniform way of coding and storing information, which may lead to unpredicted conclusions. Second, the wide majority of the reviewed studies represent the Asian population and local health policies and standards, which may not be generalizable globally. Third, heterogeneity was high in several measured outcomes, which may compromise the validity of the results. Varied reasons partially account for these differences, amongst which, surgical team’s and surgeons’ previous experience and position in the learning curve of the used surgical approach influence the most. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics of patients in both groups also vastly impact heterogeneity. In fact, it was only possible to gather PSM information from 18 of the 35 included studies. Fourth, the analyzed studies included different surgical approaches to esophagectomy (McKeown and Ivor-Lewis), which may generate another degree of heterogeneity to the data.
Conclusion
In conclusion, our study reinforces RAMIE’s safety and feasibility in the curative treatment of esophageal cancer patients. Analyzing the collected information, RAMIE shows superiority over cMIE in reducing blood lost during surgery, increasing the amount of dissected lymph nodes, decreasing pulmonary complications, and shortening periods of hospitalization after such an extensive and challenging surgery. Nonetheless, there seems to be a tendency towards shorter operative times and lower rates of anastomotic leakage using cMIE. Conversion to open surgery, 30- and 90-day mortality rates, chyle leakage, RLN palsy and cardiac and infectious complications did not show statistically significant differences between the two approaches.
Upon review of these results, RAMIE has indicated to be non-inferior to cMIE, with prospects of superiority in some fields. With the consolidation of the robotic approach, new opportunities will arise for the implementation of systems that enhance the surgical experience, such as haptic features, with kinesthetic and tactile feedback. Integration of preoperative imaging exams in the surgical field of view is also a possibility, overlapping anatomical structures with auxiliary images, which in turn facilitates the identification of dissection layers, tumor borders, and others. With the improvement of the surgeon’s comfort and confidence in decision-making, patients will be provided with a better standard of care.
Anzeige
Further studies, especially RCTs, are still necessary to overcome the limitations presented, in order to achieve definite conclusions regarding RAMIE’s current position in the treatment of esophageal cancer patients.
Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Mit der Zeitschrift Die Chirurgie erhalten Sie zusätzlich Online-Zugriff auf weitere 43 chirurgische Fachzeitschriften, CME-Fortbildungen, Webinare, Vorbereitungskursen zur Facharztprüfung und die digitale Enzyklopädie e.Medpedia.
Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18,187 patients
verfasst von
Rui Perry José Pedro Barbosa Isabel Perry José Barbosa
In der Notaufnahme wird die Chance, Opfer von häuslicher Gewalt zu identifizieren, von Orthopäden und Orthopädinnen offenbar zu wenig genutzt. Darauf deuten die Ergebnisse einer Fragebogenstudie an der Sahlgrenska-Universität in Schweden hin.
Darüber reden und aus Fehlern lernen, sollte das Motto in der Medizin lauten. Und zwar nicht nur im Sinne der Patientensicherheit. Eine negative Fehlerkultur kann auch die Behandelnden ernsthaft krank machen, warnt Prof. Dr. Reinhard Strametz. Ein Plädoyer und ein Leitfaden für den offenen Umgang mit kritischen Ereignissen in Medizin und Pflege.
Ein Frauenanteil von mindestens einem Drittel im ärztlichen Op.-Team war in einer großen retrospektiven Studie aus Kanada mit einer signifikanten Reduktion der postoperativen Morbidität assoziiert.
Bei schwerer Aortenstenose und obstruktiver KHK empfehlen die Leitlinien derzeit eine chirurgische Kombi-Behandlung aus Klappenersatz plus Bypass-OP. Diese Empfehlung wird allerdings jetzt durch eine aktuelle Studie infrage gestellt – mit überraschender Deutlichkeit.
Update Chirurgie
Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletterund bleiben Sie gut informiert.
Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.
Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?
Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.
