Abstract:Introduction: Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is a recently developed technique for the treatment of resectable esophageal cancer. The present study compares the outcomes of RAMIE and video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (VATE). Method: Patients undergoing minimally invasive esophageal surgery between December 2020 and September 2022 were included in the study, while those undergoing conventional surgery were excluded. The patients were divided into two groups, as those undergoing RAMIE (Group 1) and those undergoing VATE (Group 2). The demographic and clinical characteristics, intraoperative parameters, pathological data, and postoperative parameters of the groups were compared. Results: A total of 28 patients were included in the study, with 13 patients in Group 1 and 15 patients in Group 2. The gender distribution was similar (P = 0.488), and the mean age was 64.7 and 59.0 years in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.068). The majority of the sample was in the ASA2 category (46.2% vs. 66.7%, P = 0.341); Ca19.9 levels were higher in Group 1 than in Group 2 (25.7 vs. 13.7, P = 0.027); preoperative Hb was lower in Group 1 than in Group 2 (10.9 g/dL vs. 12.2 g/dL, P = 0.043); the most commonly performed surgery was the McKeown procedure (69.2% vs. 66.7%, P = 0.492); an intraoperative feeding jejunostomy was placed only in Group 2; the operation time was similar between the groups (338.5 min vs. 340 min, P = 0.916); and the distribution of tumor localizations was similar between the groups (P = 0.407). In terms of tumor histology, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) was the most common tumor type in the two groups (84.6% vs. 80%, P = 0.636); the tumor diameter was similar between the groups (14.9 vs. 18.1, P = 0.652); the number of removed lymph nodes was similar between the groups (24.9 vs. 22.5, P = 0.419); and the number of metastatic lymph nodes was higher in Group 2 (0.08 vs. 1.07, P = 0.27). One patient in Group 2 underwent repeat surgery due to suspected ischemic anastomosis; the distribution of postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system was similar in the two groups (P = 0.650); there was no early mortality within the first 30 days in either group; one patient in Group 2 was re-admitted within 90 days of discharge with decreased oral intake; the length of hospital stay was shorter in Group 1 (9 days vs. 16.5 days, P = 0.006); and the patients in Group 2 more often received neoadjuvant therapy in proportion to the disease stage (15.4% vs. 60%, P = 0.016). Conclusion: Robotic procedures can be safely performed in esophageal cancers with complication rates and oncological radicality similar to those of other minimally invasive techniques.

Robotic-assisted Versus Open Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer:a Comparative Study on Short-term Results

Robotic versus laparoscopic Gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy Between Da Vinci Robot-Assisted Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy and McKeown Esophagectomy for Middle and Lower Thoracic Esophageal Cancer: A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Study

Comparison of Clinical Outcome and Safety after Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Ivor Lewis Versus McKeown—A Real-World Multicenter Observational Study from China.

Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Comparison of Robotic and Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery for Lung Cancer: a Propensity-Matched Analysis.

Clinical applications of thoracolaproscopic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma

Comparison of clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted and video-assisted esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Comparison of the Recent Efficacy of Robot-assisted and Thoracic Laparoscopic Minimally Invasive Mckeown Radical Resection of Esophageal Cancer based on Propensity Score Matching

Comparisons of short-term outcomes between robot-assisted, video-assisted, and open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment: a retrospective study

Application of robot-assisted minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Comparison of short-term outcomes between transthoracic and robot-assisted transmediastinal radical surgery for esophageal cancer: a prospective study

Early Outcomes of Robotic Versus Thoracoscopic Segmentectomy for Early-Stage Lung Cancer: A Multi-Institutional Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy

PS01.232: SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES OF ROBOT-ASSISTED MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY

Perioperative and mid-term outcomes of robotic-assisted versus video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a retrospective propensity-matched analysis of 842 patients

[Comparative Study on Clinical Efficacy of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer].

The Impact of Surgical Assistants on Postoperative Complications in Robot-Assisted Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy for Esophageal Carcinoma

A retrospective study for Ivor-Lewis and McKeown esophagectomy:mininally invasive versus open esophagectomy

Initial Experience of Robot-Assisted Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy: 61 Consecutive Cases from a Single Chinese Institution

S052: a comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer