Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 9/2013

01-09-2013

Initial experience from a large referral center with robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy for oncologic purposes

Authors: Sebastian G. de la Fuente, Jill Weber, Sarah E. Hoffe, Ravi Shridhar, Richard Karl, Kenneth L. Meredith

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 9/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

We report our initial experience of patients undergoing robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy (RAIL) for oncologic purposes at a large-referral center.

Methods

A retrospective review of all consecutive patients undergoing RAIL from 2010–2011 was performed. Basic demographics were recorded. Oncologic variables recorded included: tumor type, location, postoperative tumor margins, and nodal harvest. Immediate 30-day postoperative complications also were analyzed.

Results

Fifty patients underwent RAIL with median age of 66 (range 42–82) years. The mean body mass index was 28.6 ± 0.7 kg/m2; 54 % and the majority had an American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of 3. The mean and median number of lymph nodes retrieved during surgery was 20 ± 1.4 and 18.5 respectively. R0 resections were achieved in all patients. Postoperative complications occurred in 14 (28 %) patients, including atrial fibrillation in 5 (10 %), pneumonia in 5 (10 %), anastomotic leak in 1 (2 %), conduit staple line leak in 1 (2 %), and chyle leak in 2 (4 %). The median ICU stay and length of hospitalization (LOH) were 2 and 9 days respectively. Total mean operating time calculated from time of skin incision to wound closure was 445 ± 85 minutes; however, operative times decreased over time. Similarly, there was a trend toward lower complications after the first 29 cases but this did not reach statistical significance. There were no in-hospital mortalities.

Conclusions

We demonstrated that RAIL for esophageal cancer can be performed safely and may be associated with fewer complications after a learning curve, shorter ICU stay, and LOH.
Literature
1.
Safranek PM, Cubitt J, Booth MI et al (2010) Review of open and minimal access approaches to oesophagectomy for cancer. Br J Surg 97:1845–1853PubMedCrossRef
2.
Willer BL, Mittal SK, Worrell SG et al (2010) Applicability and feasibility of incorporating minimally invasive esophagectomy at a high volume center. J Gastrointest Surg 14:1201–1206PubMedCrossRef
3.
Nagpal K, Ahmed K, Vats A et al (2010) Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 24:1621–1629PubMedCrossRef
4.
Verhage RJ, Hazebroek EJ, Boone J et al (2009) Minimally invasive surgery compared to open procedures in esophagectomy for cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Minerva Chir 64:135–146PubMed
5.
Bizekis C, Kent MS, Luketich JD et al (2006) Initial experience with minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 82:402–406PubMedCrossRef
6.
Santillan AA, Farma JM, Meredith KL et al (2008) Minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancer. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 6:879–884
7.
Luketich JD, Alvelo-Rivera M, Buenaventura PO et al (2003) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcomes in 222 patients. Ann Surg 238:486–494PubMed
8.
9.
Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW et al (2012) Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 379:1887–1892PubMedCrossRef
10.
Clark J, Sodergren MH, Purkayastha S et al (2011) The role of robotic assisted laparoscopy for oesophagogastric oncological resection; an appraisal of the literature. Dis Esophagus 24:240–250PubMedCrossRef
11.
Horgan S, Berger RA, Elli EF et al (2003) Robotic-assisted minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy. Am Surg 69:624–626PubMed
12.
Talamini MA, Chapman S, Horgan S et al (2003) A prospective analysis of 211 robotic-assisted surgical procedures. Surg Endosc 17:1521–1524PubMedCrossRef
13.
Bodner J, Wykypiel H, Wetscher G et al (2004) First experiences with the da Vinci operating robot in thoracic surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 25:844–851PubMedCrossRef
14.
Ruurda JP, Gooszen HG, Broeders IA (2004) Early experience in robot-assisted laparoscopic Heller myotomy. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl (241): 4–8
15.
Gutt CN, Bintintan VV, Köninger J et al (2006) Robotic-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy. Langenbecks Arch Surg 391:428–434PubMedCrossRef
16.
Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M et al (2003) Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138:777–784PubMedCrossRef
17.
Anderson C, Hellan M, Kernstine K et al (2007) Robotic surgery for gastrointestinal malignancies. Int J Med Robot 3:297–300PubMedCrossRef
18.
Galvani CA, Gorodner MV, Moser F et al (2008) Robotically assisted laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy. Surg Endosc 22:188–195PubMedCrossRef
19.
Kernstine KH, DeArmond DT, Shamoun DM et al (2007) The first series of completely robotic esophagectomies with three-field lymphadenectomy: initial experience. Surg Endosc 21:2285–2292PubMedCrossRef
20.
21.
Espat NJ, Jacobsen G, Horgan S et al (2005) Minimally invasive treatment of esophageal cancer: laparoscopic staging to robotic esophagectomy. Cancer J 11:10–17PubMedCrossRef
22.
van Hillegersberg R, Boone J, Draaisma W et al (2006) First experience with robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagolymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc 20:1435–1439PubMedCrossRef
23.
Boone J, Schipper ME, Moojen WA et al (2009) Robot-assisted thoracoscopic oesophagectomy for cancer. Br J Surg 96:878–886PubMedCrossRef
24.
Kim DJ, Hyung WJ, Lee CY et al (2010) Thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: feasibility and safety of robotic assistance in the prone position. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 139:53–59PubMedCrossRef
25.
Puntambekar SP, Rayate N, Joshi S et al (2011) Robotic transthoracic esophagectomy in the prone position: experience with 32 patients with esophageal cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 142:1283–1284PubMedCrossRef
26.
27.
Landry CS, Grubbs EG, Stephen Morris G et al (2011) Robot assisted transaxillary surgery (RATS) for the removal of thyroid and parathyroid glands. Surgery 149:549–555PubMedCrossRef
28.
Lee J, Yun JH, Nam KH et al (2011) Perioperative clinical outcomes after robotic thyroidectomy for thyroid carcinoma: a multicenter study. Surg Endosc 25:906–912PubMedCrossRef
29.
Bokhari MB, Patel CB, Ramos-Valadez DI et al (2011) Learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 25:855–860PubMedCrossRef
30.
Hayn MH, Hussain A, Mansour AM et al (2010) The learning curve of robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium. Eur Urol 58:197–202PubMedCrossRef
31.
Meredith KL, Weber JM, Turaga KK et al (2010) Pathologic response after neoadjuvant therapy is the major determinant of survival in patients with esophageal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1159–1167PubMedCrossRef
32.
Melis M, Weber JM, McLoughlin JM et al (2011) An elevated body mass index does not reduce survival after esophagectomy for cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 18:824–831PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Initial experience from a large referral center with robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy for oncologic purposes
Authors
Sebastian G. de la Fuente
Jill Weber
Sarah E. Hoffe
Ravi Shridhar
Richard Karl
Kenneth L. Meredith
Publication date
01-09-2013
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 9/2013
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-2915-6

Other articles of this Issue 9/2013

Surgical Endoscopy 9/2013 Go to the issue

Dynamic Manuscript

Clinical utility of an endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous technique via various approach routes

OriginalPaper

Time trend and variability of open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with symptomatic gallstone disease

OriginalPaper

Clinical and oncologic safety of laparoscopic surgery for obstructive left colorectal cancer following transanal endoscopic tube decompression

OriginalPaper

Covered self-expandable metal stents are more associated with complications in the management of malignant colorectal obstruction

Editorial

Fundamental use of surgical energy (FUSE)

Endoluminal Surgery

Gastric pouch reduction using StomaphyX™ in post Roux-en-Y gastric bypass patients does not result in sustained weight loss: a retrospective analysis