Fashioning esophagogastric anastomosis in robotic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy: a multicenter experience.
Anastomosis
Esophagectomy
Esophagogastric
Ivor-Lewis
Robotic
Journal
Langenbeck's archives of surgery
ISSN: 1435-2451
Titre abrégé: Langenbecks Arch Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9808285
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Mar 2024
22 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
17
09
2023
accepted:
15
03
2024
medline:
22
3
2024
pubmed:
22
3
2024
entrez:
22
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of the present study is to compare outcomes of the robotic hand-sewn, linear- and circular-stapled techniques performed to create an intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis in patients who underwent Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. Patients who underwent a planned Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy were retrospectively analysed from prospectively maintained databases. Only patients who underwent a robotic thoracic approach with the creation of an intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis were included in the study. Patients were divided into three groups: hand-sewn-, circular stapled-, and linear-stapled anastomosis group. Demographic information and surgery-related data were extracted. The primary outcome was the rate of anastomotic leakages (AL) in the three groups. Moreover, the rate of grade A, B and C anastomotic leakage were evaluated. In addition, patients of each group were divided in subgroups according to the characteristics of anastomotic fashioning technique. Two hundred and thirty patients were enrolled in the study. No significant differences were found between the three groups about AL rate (p = 0.137). Considering the management of the AL for each of the three groups, no significant differences were found. Evaluating the correlation between AL rate and the characteristics of anastomotic fashioning technique, no significant differences were found. No standardized anastomotic fashioning technique has yet been generally accepted. This study could be considered a call to perform ad hoc high-quality studies involving high-volume centers for upper gastrointestinal surgery to evaluate what is the most advantageous anastomotic technique.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of the present study is to compare outcomes of the robotic hand-sewn, linear- and circular-stapled techniques performed to create an intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis in patients who underwent Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients who underwent a planned Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy were retrospectively analysed from prospectively maintained databases. Only patients who underwent a robotic thoracic approach with the creation of an intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis were included in the study. Patients were divided into three groups: hand-sewn-, circular stapled-, and linear-stapled anastomosis group. Demographic information and surgery-related data were extracted. The primary outcome was the rate of anastomotic leakages (AL) in the three groups. Moreover, the rate of grade A, B and C anastomotic leakage were evaluated. In addition, patients of each group were divided in subgroups according to the characteristics of anastomotic fashioning technique.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Two hundred and thirty patients were enrolled in the study. No significant differences were found between the three groups about AL rate (p = 0.137). Considering the management of the AL for each of the three groups, no significant differences were found. Evaluating the correlation between AL rate and the characteristics of anastomotic fashioning technique, no significant differences were found.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
No standardized anastomotic fashioning technique has yet been generally accepted. This study could be considered a call to perform ad hoc high-quality studies involving high-volume centers for upper gastrointestinal surgery to evaluate what is the most advantageous anastomotic technique.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38517543
doi: 10.1007/s00423-024-03290-3
pii: 10.1007/s00423-024-03290-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
103Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Zhang Y (2013) Epidemiology of esophageal cancer. World J Gastroenterol: WJG 19(34):5598
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i34.5598
pubmed: 24039351
pmcid: 3769895
Harirchi I, Kolahdoozan S, Hajizadeh S, Safari F, Sedighi Z, Nahvijou A et al (2014) Esophageal cancer in Iran; a population-based study regarding adequacy of cancer surgery and overall survival. Eur J Surg Oncol (EJSO) 40(3):352–357
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2013.10.011
pubmed: 24238763
Arnold M, Abnet CC, Neale RE, Vignat J, Giovannucci EL, McGlynn KA, Bray F (2020) Global burden of 5 major types of gastrointestinal cancer. Gastroenterology 159(1):335–349.e15. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.068
doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.068
pubmed: 32247694
Chen MF, Yang YH, Lai CH, Chen PC, Chen WC (2013) Outcome of patients with esophageal cancer: a nationwide analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 20(9):3023–3030. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-013-2935-4
Wang B, Zuo Z, Chen H, Qiu B, Du M, Gao Y (2017) The comparison of thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy and open esophagectomy: A meta-analysis. Indian J Cancer 54(1):115–119. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijc.IJC_192_17
doi: 10.4103/ijc.IJC_192_17
pubmed: 29199673
Guo W, Ma X, Yang S, Zhu X, Qin W, Xiang J, Lerut T, Li H (2016) Combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: a meta-analysis of outcomes. Surg Endosc 30(9):3873–3881. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4692-x
Wang K, Zhong J, Liu Q, Lin P, Fu J (2022) A propensity score-matched analysis of thoracolaparoscopic vs open mckeown’s esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 113(2):473–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.02.012
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.02.012
pubmed: 33621558
Nuytens F, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS, Meunier B, Gagnière J, Collet D, D’Journo XB, Brigand C, Perniceni T, Carrère N, Mabrut JY, Msika S, Peschaud F, Prudhomme M, Markar SR, Piessen G, Fédération de Recherche en Chirurgie (FRENCH) French Eso-Gastric Tumors (FREGAT) working groups (2021) Five-year survival outcomes of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy in esophageal cancer: results of the MIRO randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 156(4):323–332. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2020.7081
Mariette C, Markar S, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS, Meunier B, Pezet D, Collet D, D’Journo XB, Brigand C, Perniceni T, Carrere N, Mabrut JY, Msika S, Peschaud F, Prudhomme M, Bonnetain F, Piessen G, FRENCH, FREGAT (2020) Health-related quality of life following hybrid minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer, analysis of a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase III controlled trial: the MIRO trial. Ann Surg 271(6):1023–1029. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003559
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003559
pubmed: 31404005
Yoshida N, Yamamoto H, Baba H, Miyata H, Watanabe M, Toh Y, Matsubara H, Kakeji Y, Seto Y (2020) Can minimally invasive esophagectomy replace open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer? Latest analysis of 24,233 esophagectomies from the Japanese national clinical database. Ann Surg 272(1):118–124. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003222
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003222
pubmed: 30720501
Maas KW, Cuesta MA, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Roig J, Bonavina L, Rosman C, Gisbertz SS, Biere SS, van der Peet DL, Klinkenbijl JH, Hollmann MW, de Lange ES, Bonjer HJ (2015) Quality of life and late complications after minimally invasive compared to open esophagectomy: results of a randomized trial. World J Surg 39(8):1986–1993. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-015-3100-y
van der Sluis PC, van der Horst S, May AM, Schippers C, Brosens LAA, Joore HCA, Kroese CC, Haj Mohammad N, Mook S, Vleggaar FP, Borel Rinkes IHM, Ruurda JP, van Hillegersberg R (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. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003031
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003031
pubmed: 30308612
Egberts JH, Stein H, Aselmann H, Hendricks A, Becker T (2017) Fully robotic da Vinci Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in four-arm technique-problems and solutions. Dis Esophagus 30(12):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/dox098
doi: 10.1093/dote/dox098
pubmed: 28881889
Milone M, Manigrasso M, Velotti N, Torino S, Vozza A, Sarnelli G et al (2019) Completeness of total mesorectum excision of laparoscopic versus robotic surgery: a review with a meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2019,34:983–991
doi: 10.1007/s00384-019-03307-0
pubmed: 31056732
Ceccarelli G, Andolfi E, Biancafarina A, Rocca A, Amato M, Milone M, Scricciolo M, Frezza B, Miranda E, De Prizio M, Fontani A (2017) Robot-assisted surgery in elderly and very elderly population: our experience in oncologic and general surgery with literature review. Aging Clin Exp Res 29(Suppl 1):55–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-016-0676-5
doi: 10.1007/s40520-016-0676-5
pubmed: 27905087
Moon AS, Garofalo J, Koirala P, Vu MLT, Chuang L (2020) Robotic surgery in gynecology. Surg Clin N Am 82:96–109
Tang AB, Lamaina M, Childers CP, Mak SS, Ruan Q, Begashaw MM, Bergman J, Booth MS, Shekelle PG, Wilson M, Gunnar W, Maggard-Gibbons M, Girgis MD (2021) Perioperative and long-term outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review. Am Surg 87(1):21–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003134820948912
doi: 10.1177/0003134820948912
pubmed: 32902308
Manigrasso M, Vertaldi S, Marello A, Antoniou SA, Francis NK, De Palma GD et al (2021) Robotic esophagectomy. a systematic review with meta-analysis of clinical outcomes. J Pers Med 11(7):640. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11070640
doi: 10.3390/jpm11070640
pubmed: 34357107
pmcid: 8306060
Nickel F, Probst P, Studier-Fischer A et al (2021) Minimally invasive versus open abdominothoracic esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma (MIVATE) - study protocol for a randomized controlled trial DRKS00016773. Trials 22:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04966-z
doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04966-z
Gisbertz SS, Hagens ERC, Ruurda JP, Schneider PM, Tan LJ, Domrachev SA, Hoeppner J, van Berge Henegouwen MI (2018) The evolution of surgical approach for esophageal cancer. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1434(1):149–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13957
doi: 10.1111/nyas.13957
pubmed: 30191569
Biere SS, 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 379:1887–1892
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60516-9
pubmed: 22552194
Lv L, Hu W, Ren Y, Wei X (2016) Minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. Onco Targets Ther 31(9):6751–6762
doi: 10.2147/OTT.S112105
Haverkamp L, Seesing MF, Ruurda JP, Boone J, Hillegersberg VR (2017) Worldwide trends in surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer. Dis Esophagus 30(1):1–7
pubmed: 27001442
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
pubmed: 28187044
Jin D, Yao L, Yu J, Liu R, Guo T, Yang K et al (2019) Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus the conventional minimally invasive one: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 15:e1988
doi: 10.1002/rcs.1988
Jung JO, de Groot EM, Kingma BF, Babic B, Ruurda JP, Grimminger PP et al (2023) Hybrid laparoscopic versus fully robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: an international propensity-score matched analysis of perioperative outcome. Surg Endosc 37(6):4466–4477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-09911-0
doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-09911-0
pubmed: 36808472
pmcid: 10234920
Kassis ES, Kosinski AS, Ross P Jr, Koppes KE, Donahue JM, Daniel VC (2013) Predictors of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: an analysis of the society of thoracic surgeons general thoracic database. Ann Thorac Surg 96(6):1919–1926
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.07.119
pubmed: 24075499
Plat VD, Stam WT, Schoonmade LJ, Heineman DJ, van der Peet DL, Daams F (2020) Implementation of robot-assisted Ivor Lewis procedure: robotic hand-sewn, linear or circular technique? Am J Surg 220(1):62–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.11.031
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.11.031
pubmed: 31796219
Shen T, Zhang Y, Cao Y, Li C, Li H (2022) Robot-assisted Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy (RAILE): a review of surgical techniques and clinical outcomes. Front Surg 4(9):998282. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.998282
doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.998282
Kingma BF, Grimminger PP, van der Sluis PC, van Det MJ, Kouwenhoven EA, Chao YK et al (2020) Worldwide techniques and outcomes in robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE): results from the Multicenter International Registry. Ann Surg 276(5):e386–e392. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004550
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004550
pubmed: 33177354
Ben-David K, Tuttle R, Kukar M et al (2016) Minimally invasive esophagectomy utilizing a stapled side-to-side anastomosis is safe in the western patient population. Ann Surg Oncol 23(9):3056e3062
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5232-1
Price TN, Nichols FC, Harmsen WS, Allen MS, Cassivi SD, Wigle DA et al (2013) A comprehensive review of anastomotic technique in 432 esophagectomies. Ann Thorac Surg 95(4):1154–1161
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.11.045
pubmed: 23395626