Lower Rates of Unplanned Conversion to Open in Robotic Approach to Esophagectomy for Cancer

Background Minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy have gained popularity worldwide; however, unplanned conversion to an open approach is not uncommon. This study sought to investigate risk factors associated with converting to an open approach and to evaluate outcomes following conversion. Methods Patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for cancer were identified using the 2016-2019 Procedure Targeted NSQIP Database. Multivariable, stepwise logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate factors associated with unplanned conversion to open esophagectomy. Propensity-matched comparison of robotic (RAMIE) to traditional MIE was performed. Results A total of 1347 patients were included; 140 patients (10%) underwent conversion to open. Morbid obesity, diabetes, hypertension, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and squamous cell carcinoma were associated with a higher likelihood of conversion. A robotic approach was associated with a lower likelihood of conversion to open (OR .57, 95% CI 0.32-.99). On multivariable analysis, squamous cell carcinoma pathology was the only variable independently associated with higher odds of conversion (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.02-6.98). Propensity-matched comparison of RAMIE vs MIE showed no significant difference in conversion rate (6.5% vs 9.1%, P = .298), morbidity, or mortality. Discussion A robotic approach to esophagectomy was associated with a lower likelihood of unplanned conversion to open, and patients who were converted to open experienced worse outcomes. Future studies should aim to determine why a robotic esophagectomy approach may lead to fewer open conversions as it may be an underappreciated benefit of this newest operative approach.

[1]  M. McCarter,et al.  Outcomes After Converted Minimally Invasive to Open Esophagectomy in Patients with Esophageal Cancer. , 2020, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[2]  T. Sunkara,et al.  Epidemiology of esophageal cancer: update in global trends, etiology and risk factors , 2020, Clinical Journal of Gastroenterology.

[3]  J. Luketich,et al.  Open, Minimally Invasive, and Robotic Approaches for Esophagectomy: What Is the Approach Algorithm? , 2020, Thoracic surgery clinics.

[4]  A. Berger,et al.  A 10-year ACS-NSQIP Analysis of Trends in Esophagectomy Practices. , 2020, The Journal of surgical research.

[5]  R. van Hillegersberg,et al.  Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: past, present and future. , 2020, Journal of thoracic disease.

[6]  John D. Vossler,et al.  Outcomes of robotic versus non-robotic minimally-invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: An American College of Surgeons NSQIP database analysis. , 2019, American journal of surgery.

[7]  M. McCarter,et al.  Conversion to open surgery during minimally invasive esophagectomy portends worse short-term outcomes: an analysis of the National Cancer Database , 2019, Surgical Endoscopy.

[8]  R. Shridhar,et al.  Comparative Perioperative Outcomes by Esophagectomy Surgical Technique , 2019, Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.

[9]  R. van Hillegersberg,et al.  Robotic-assisted Esophagectomy vs Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy (REVATE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial , 2019, Trials.

[10]  G. Salti,et al.  Outcomes of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy for Cancer: A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis of NSQIP Database , 2019, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[11]  J. Xiang,et al.  Early Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Versus Thoracoscopic-Assisted Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Study , 2019, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[12]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries , 2018, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[13]  Juan Wu,et al.  Unplanned Robotic-Assisted Conversion-to-Open Colorectal Surgery is Associated with Adverse Outcomes , 2018, Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.

[14]  Hyunsuk Frank Roh,et al.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in randomized controlled trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis , 2018, PloS one.

[15]  Y. Liu,et al.  Minimally invasive hepatectomy conversions: an analysis of risk factors and outcomes. , 2017, HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association.

[16]  Y. Seto,et al.  Robotic surgery for esophageal cancer: Merits and demerits , 2017, Annals of gastroenterological surgery.

[17]  P. Chiu,et al.  Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for treatment of esophageal carcinoma , 2017, Journal of Robotic Surgery.

[18]  J. Luketich,et al.  Surgeon proficiency and outcomes in esophagectomy: a perspective and comment on an analysis of the Swedish Cancer Registry. , 2017, Journal of thoracic disease.

[19]  D. Treitl,et al.  Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A New Era of Surgical Resection. , 2016, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A.

[20]  J. Wolf,et al.  Risk factors for conversion to hand assisted laparoscopy or open surgery during laparoscopic renal surgery. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[21]  H. Chandler Database , 1985 .

[22]  Surgical , 1856, Iowa medical journal.