Robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, a review of the technique.
Esophageal cancer
Ivor Lewis esophagectomy
Minimally invasive esophagectomy
Robotic-assisted
Journal
Updates in surgery
ISSN: 2038-3312
Titre abrégé: Updates Surg
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 101539818
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2021
Jun 2021
Historique:
received:
02
07
2020
accepted:
09
02
2021
pubmed:
21
5
2021
medline:
16
10
2021
entrez:
20
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Esophageal resection is a key component of the multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy is gaining widespread approval amongst few centers with promising early data. There is significant variability in the operative approach utilized by different centers and this review describes, step-by-step, the operative technique at a high-volume tertiary center. The cornerstone of management is individualized surgical approach, based on patient, tumor and technical factors. Although our approach is based on aforementioned factors, our preferred approach is an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and this review focuses on that. The procedure is broken down into three key parts, starting with an abdominal exploration and creation of the gastric conduit, placement of jejunostomy tube, moving to thoracic mobilization and creation of the side-side 6 cm stapled esophagogastric anastomosis with a final abdominal portion to assure proper positioning of the conduit and reducing redundancy. This approach is fully robotic and a side to side anastomosis facilitates the creation of a widely patent anastomosis therefore minimizing the risk of anastomotic leaks and strictures. Our experience with minimally invasive esophagectomy, as has been previously published, is associated with a 5.1% of anastomotic leak and 7.6% of anastomotic stricture. The robotic platform further optimizes this technique and helps us safely accomplish a side to side stapled anastomosis. Superior instrument dexterity in a restricted thoracic space is facilitated by intracorporeal suturing and robotic stapling. Thus, it obviates the need for a larger thoracotomy incision, which is typically needed for an EEA anastomosis, and that is traditionally associated with higher stricture rate.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34014498
doi: 10.1007/s13304-021-01000-y
pii: 10.1007/s13304-021-01000-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
831-838Références
Pohl H, Sirovich B, Welch HG (2010) Esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence: are we reaching the peak? Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 19(6):1468–1470
doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0012
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2020) Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin 70(1):7–30
doi: 10.3322/caac.21590
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2020) Esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancers (Version 1.2020). http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/esopjageal.pdf . Accessed 26 Apr 2020
Biere SSAY, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW, Bonavina L, Rosman C, Garcia JR et al (2012) Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 379(9829):1887–1892
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60516-9
Straatman J, van der Wielen N, Cuesta MA, Daams F, Roig Garcia J, Bonavina L et al (2017) Minimally invasive versus open esophageal resection: three-year follow-up of the previously reported randomized controlled trial: the TIME Trial. Ann Surg 266(2):232–236
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002171
Mariette C, Markar SR, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS, Meunier B, Pezet D, Collet D et al (2019) Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 380(2):152–162
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805101
Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Franchetti Y, Catalano PJ, Swanson S, Sugarbaker DJ et al (2015) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: results of a prospective phase II multicenter trial-the eastern cooperative oncology group (E2202) study. Ann Surg 261(4):702–707
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000993
Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O, Levy RM, Keeley S, Shende M et al (2012) Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg 256(1):95–103
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182590603
Ben-David K, Tuttle R, Kukar M, Rossidis G, Hochwald SN (2016) Minimally invasive esophagectomy utilizing a stapled side-to-side anastomosis is safe in the western patient population. Ann Surg Oncol 23(9):3056–3062
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5232-1
Seto Y, Mori K, Aikou S (2017) Robotic surgery for esophageal cancer: merits and demerits. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 1(3):193–198
doi: 10.1002/ags3.12028
van Hillegersberg R, Boone J, Draaisma WA, Broeders IA, Giezeman MJ, Borel Rinkes IH (2006) First experience with robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagolymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc 20(9):1435–1439
doi: 10.1007/s00464-005-0674-8
van der Sluis PC, van der Horst S, May AM, Schippers C, Brosens LAA, Joore HCA et al (2019) Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 269(4):621–630
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003031
Peng JS, Kukar M, Hochwald SN (2020) Technique for robotic transhiatal esophagectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-08186-x
doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-08186-x
pubmed: 32851518
pmcid: 32851518
Peng JS, Nurkin SJ, Hochwald SN, Kukar M (2020) Technique for robotic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with 6-cm linear stapled side-to-side anastomosis. Ann Surg Oncol 27(3):824
doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07933-4
van Hagen PHM, van Lanschot JJ et al (2012) Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med 366:2074–2084
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1112088
Shapiro J, van Lanschot JJB, Hulshof MCCM, van Hagen P, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Wijnhoven BPL et al (2015) Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for oesophageal or junctional cancer (CROSS): long-term results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 16(9):1090–1098
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00040-6
Alderson D, Cunningham D, Nankivell M, Blazeby JM, Griffin SM, Crellin A et al (2017) Neoadjuvant cisplatin and fluorouracil versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine followed by resection in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (UK MRC OE05): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 18(9):1249–1260
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30447-3
Haverkamp L, Seesing MF, Ruurda JP, Boone J, Hillegersberg RV (2017) Worldwide trends in surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer. Dis Esophagus 30(1):1–7
pubmed: 27001442
pmcid: 27001442
Kukar M, Ben-David K, Peng JS et al (2019) Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with linear stapled anastomosis associated with low leak and stricture rates. J Gastrointest Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-019-04320-y
doi: 10.1007/s11605-019-04320-y
pubmed: 31317458
pmcid: 31317458
Singh D, Maley RH, Santucci T et al (2001) Experience and technique of stapled mechanical cervical esophagogastric anastomosis. Ann Thorac Surg 71:419–424
doi: 10.1016/S0003-4975(00)02337-7
Orringer MB, Marshall B, Iannettoni MD (2000) Eliminating the cervical esophagogastric anastomotic leak with a side-to-side stapled anastomosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 119:277–288
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5223(00)70183-8
Ercan S, Rice TW, Murthy SC, Rybicki LA, Blackstone EH (2005) Does esophagogastric anastomotic technique influence the outcome of patients with esophageal cancer? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 129(3):623–631
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2004.08.024
Liu QX, Min JX, Deng XF, Dai JG (2014) Is hand sewing comparable with stapling for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy? A meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 20(45):17218–17226
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i45.17218
Deng XF, Liu QX, Zhou D, Min JX, Dai JG (2015) Hand-sewn vs linearly stapled esophagogastric anastomosis for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 21(15):4757–4764
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i15.4757
van der Sluis PC, Tagkalos E, Hadzijusufovic E et al (2020) Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis (Ivor Lewis): promising results in 100 consecutive patients (the european experience). J Gastrointest Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-019-04510-8
doi: 10.1007/s11605-019-04510-8
pubmed: 32072382
pmcid: 32072382
Okusanya OT, Sarkaria IS, Hess NR, Nason KS, Sanchez MV, Levy RM et al (2017) Robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE): the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center initial experience. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 6(2):179–185
doi: 10.21037/acs.2017.03.12
Sarkaria IS, Rizk NP, Grosser R, Goldman D, Finley DJ, Ghanie A et al (2016) Attaining proficiency in robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy while maximizing safety during procedure development. Innov (Phila) 11(4):268–273
doi: 10.1097/imi.0000000000000297
Yang Y, Zhang X, Li B, Li Z, Sun Y, Mao T et al (2019) Robot-assisted esophagectomy (RAE) versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: protocol for a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial (RAMIE trial, robot-assisted minimally invasive Esophagectomy). BMC Cancer 19(1):608
doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-5799-6
Chao YK, Li ZG, Wen YW, Kim DJ, Park SY, Chang YL et al (2019) Robotic-assisted esophagectomy vs video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (REVATE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 20(1):346
doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3441-1
Zhang Y, Han Y, Gan Q, Xiang J, Jin R, Chen K et al (2019) Early outcomes of robot-assisted versus thoracoscopic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched study. Ann Surg Oncol 26(5):1284–1291
doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07273-3