Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Thoracolaparoscopic Esophagectomy Versus Open Transthoracic Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: The standard curative treatment for patients with esophageal cancer is perioperative chemotherapy or preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by open transthoracic esophagectomy (OTE). Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy (RAMIE) may reduce complications. Methods: A single-center randomized controlled trial was conducted, assigning 112 patients with resectable intrathoracic esophageal cancer to either RAMIE or OTE. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of overall surgery-related postoperative complications (modified Clavien-Dindo classification grade 2–5). Results: Overall surgery-related postoperative complications occurred less frequently after RAMIE (59%) compared to OTE (80%) [risk ratio with RAMIE (RR) 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.57–0.96; P = 0.02]. RAMIE resulted in less median blood loss (400 vs 568 mL, P <0.001), a lower percentage of pulmonary complications (RR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34–0.85; P = 0.005) and cardiac complications (RR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.27–0.83; P = 0.006) and lower mean postoperative pain (visual analog scale, 1.86 vs 2.62; P < 0.001) compared to OTE. Functional recovery at postoperative day 14 was better in the RAMIE group [RR 1.48 (95% CI, 1.03–2.13; P = 0.038)] with better quality of life score at discharge [mean difference quality of life score 13.4 (2.0–24.7, p = 0.02)] and 6 weeks postdischarge [mean difference 11.1 quality of life score (1.0–21.1; P = 0.03)]. Short- and long-term oncological outcomes were comparable at a medium follow-up of 40 months. Conclusions: RAMIE resulted in a lower percentage of overall surgery-related and cardiopulmonary complications with lower postoperative pain, better short-term quality of life, and a better short-term postoperative functional recovery compared to OTE. Oncological outcomes were comparable and in concordance with the highest standards nowadays.

[1]  R. van Hillegersberg,et al.  Learning Curve for Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy: Results From 312 Cases. , 2018, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[2]  M. Lee,et al.  A systematic review of the incidence of and risk factors for postoperative atrial fibrillation following general surgery , 2018, Anaesthesia.

[3]  M. Cuesta,et al.  A structured training program for minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer- a Delphi consensus study in Europe. , 2018, Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus.

[4]  M. Cuesta,et al.  Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophageal Resection: Three-year Follow-up of the Previously Reported Randomized Controlled Trial the TIME Trial , 2017, Annals of surgery.

[5]  J. Ruurda,et al.  Worldwide trends in surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer. , 2016, Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus.

[6]  C. Zhai,et al.  A comparison of short-term outcomes between Ivor-Lewis and McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy. , 2015, Journal of thoracic disease.

[7]  J. Ruurda,et al.  Robot‐assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A systematic review , 2015, Journal of surgical oncology.

[8]  Arnulf H Hölscher,et al.  International Consensus on Standardization of Data Collection for Complications Associated With Esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). , 2015, Annals of surgery.

[9]  A. Karthikesalingam,et al.  Enhanced recovery pathways lead to an improvement in postoperative outcomes following esophagectomy: systematic review and pooled analysis. , 2015, Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus.

[10]  I. B. Borel Rinkes,et al.  Oncologic Long-Term Results of Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Thoraco-Laparoscopic Esophagectomy with Two-Field Lymphadenectomy for Esophageal Cancer , 2015, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[11]  R. van Hillegersberg,et al.  A New Clinical Scoring System to Define Pneumonia following Esophagectomy for Cancer , 2014, Digestive Surgery.

[12]  David Moher,et al.  Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. , 2013, JAMA.

[13]  R. van Hillegersberg,et al.  Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer, a randomized controlled trial (ROBOT trial) , 2012, Trials.

[14]  Ghulam Abbas,et al.  Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Review of Over 1000 Patients , 2012, Annals of surgery.

[15]  E W Steyerberg,et al.  Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  Suzanne S Gisbertz,et al.  Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial , 2012, The Lancet.

[17]  S. Msika,et al.  Open versus laparoscopically-assisted oesophagectomy for cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled phase III trial - the MIRO trial , 2011, BMC Cancer.

[18]  V. Gebski,et al.  Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable oesophageal carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis. , 2011, The Lancet. Oncology.

[19]  R. van Hillegersberg,et al.  How to Define a Positive Circumferential Resection Margin in T3 Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus , 2011, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[20]  J Cubitt,et al.  Review of open and minimal access approaches to oesophagectomy for cancer , 2010, The British journal of surgery.

[21]  David W. Taggart,et al.  No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations , 2009, The Lancet.

[22]  I. B. Borel Rinkes,et al.  Robot‐assisted thoracoscopic oesophagectomy for cancer , 2009, The British journal of surgery.

[23]  R. van Hillegersberg,et al.  DIAGNOSTIC VALUE OF ROUTINE AQUEOUS CONTRAST SWALLOW EXAMINATION AFTER OESOPHAGECTOMY FOR DETECTING LEAKAGE OF THE CERVICAL OESOPHAGOGASTRIC ANASTOMOSIS , 2008, ANZ journal of surgery.

[24]  C. V. D. van de Velde,et al.  Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  I. Broeders,et al.  First experience with robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagolymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer , 2006, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[26]  N. Demartines,et al.  Classification of Surgical Complications: A New Proposal With Evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 Patients and Results of a Survey , 2004, Annals of Surgery.

[27]  Paul Fockens,et al.  Extended transthoracic resection compared with limited transhiatal resection for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[28]  R. Tsuchiya,et al.  Lymph node sampling in lung cancer: how should it be done? , 1999, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[29]  H. Stein,et al.  Classification of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction , 1998, The British journal of surgery.

[30]  D. Carter.  TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors , 1998 .

[31]  J. Petiot,et al.  Pathologic assessment of tumor regression after preoperative chemoradiotherapy of esophageal carcinoma. Clinicopathologic correlations , 1994, Cancer.

[32]  D. Osoba,et al.  The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. , 1993, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[33]  D. Osoba,et al.  Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. , 1998, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[34]  R. Veldkamp,et al.  Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer : short-term outcomes of a randomised trial , 2022 .