Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Jun 29;14(13):3177.
doi: 10.3390/cancers14133177.

Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Stepan M Esagian  1 , Ioannis A Ziogas  1 , Konstantinos Skarentzos  1 , Ioannis Katsaros  1   2 , Georgios Tsoulfas  3 , Daniela Molena  4 , Michalis V Karamouzis  5 , Ioannis Rouvelas  6   7 , Magnus Nilsson  6   7 , Dimitrios Schizas  2
Affiliations
Review

Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Stepan M Esagian et al. Cancers (Basel). .

Abstract

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) was introduced as a further development of the conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy, aiming to further improve the high morbidity and mortality associated with open esophagectomy. We aimed to compare the outcomes between RAMIE and open esophagectomy, which remains a popular approach for resectable esophageal cancer. Ten studies meeting our inclusion criteria were identified, including five retrospective cohort, four prospective cohort, and one randomized controlled trial. RAMIE was associated with significantly lower rates of overall pulmonary complications (odds ratio (OR): 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI): [0.26, 0.56]), pneumonia (OR: 0.39, 95% CI: [0.26, 0.57]), atrial fibrillation (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: [0.29, 0.98]), and wound infections (OR: 0.20, 95% CI: [0.07, 0.57]) and resulted in less blood loss (weighted mean difference (WMD): -187.08 mL, 95% CI: [-283.81, -90.35]) and shorter hospital stays (WMD: -9.22 days, 95% CI: [-14.39, -4.06]) but longer operative times (WMD: 69.45 min, 95% CI: [34.39, 104.42]). No other statistically significant difference was observed regarding surgical and short-term oncological outcomes. Similar findings were observed when comparing totally robotic procedures only to OE. RAMIE is a safe and feasible procedure, resulting in decreased cardiopulmonary morbidity, wound infections, blood loss, and shorter hospital stays compared to open esophagectomy.

Keywords: RAMIE; minimally invasive esophagectomy; open esophagectomy; robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy; robotic esophagectomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram of the study selection process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plots of overall complication rate (A), overall pulmonary complication rate (B), anastomotic leakage rate (C), 30-day mortality rate (D), and 90-day mortality rate (E) [21,23,24,25,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41].
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plots of total lymph nodes resected (A) and margin-negative resection (R0) rate (B) [21,23,34,35,37,38,39,40,41].
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plots of operative time (A), estimated blood loss (B), intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (C), and hospital length of stay (D) [21,23,34,35,37,38,39,40,41].
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plots of pneumonia rate (A), acute respiratory distress syndrome rate (B), and atrial fibrillation rate (C) [21,23,34,35,36,37,39,41].
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plots of postoperative hemorrhage rate (A), chylothorax rate (B), recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy rate (C), and wound infection rate (D) [21,23,34,35,36,37,38,39,41].
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ajani J.A., Barthel J.S., Bentrem D.J., Amico T.A.D., Das P., Denlinger C.S., Fuchs C.S., Gerdes H., Glasgow R.E., Hayman J.A., et al. Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2011;9:830–887. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2011.0072. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ando N., Ozawa S., Kitagawa Y., Shinozawa Y., Kitajima M. Improvement in the Results of Surgical Treatment of Advanced Squamous Esophageal Carcinoma During 15 Consecutive Years. Ann. Surg. 2000;232:225–232. doi: 10.1097/00000658-200008000-00013. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Takeuchi H., Miyata H., Gotoh M., Kitagawa Y., Baba H., Kimura W., Tomita N., Nakagoe T., Shimada M., Sugihara K., et al. A Risk Model for Esophagectomy Using Data of 5354 Patients Included in a Japanese Nationwide Web-Based Database. Ann. Surg. 2014;260:259–266. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000644. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lerut T., Moons J., Coosemans W., Van Raemdonck D., De Leyn P., Decaluwé H., Decker G., Nafteux P. Postoperative Complications after Transthoracic Esophagectomy for Cancer of the Esophagus and Gastroesophageal Junction Are Correlated with Early Cancer Recurrence: Role of Systematic Grading of Complications Using the Modified Clavien Classification. Ann. Surg. 2009;250:798–806. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181bdd5a8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jiang R., Liu Y., Ward K.C., Force S.D., Pickens A., Sancheti M.S., Javidfar J., Fernandez F.G., Khullar O.V. Excess Cost and Predictive Factors of Esophagectomy Complications in the SEER-Medicare Database. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2018;106:1484–1491. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.05.062. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources