Abstract:OBJECTIVES: To give a comprehensive review of the literature comparing perioperative outcomes and long-term survival with robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) versus minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer.BACKGROUND: Curative minimally invasive surgical treatment for esophageal cancer includes RAMIE and conventional MIE. It remains controversial whether RAMIE is comparable to MIE.METHODS: This review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021260963). A systematic search of databases was conducted. Perioperative outcomes and long-term survival were analyzed and subgroup analysis was conducted. Cumulative meta-analysis was performed to track therapeutic effectiveness.RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included and a total of 2932 patients (92.88% squamous cell carcinoma, 29.83% neoadjuvant therapy, and 38.93% stage III-IV), 1418 underwent RAMIE and 1514 underwent MIE, were analyzed. The number of total lymph nodes (LNs) [23.35 (95% CI: 21.41-25.29) vs 21.98 (95% CI: 20.31-23.65); mean difference (MD) = 1.18; 95% CI: 0.06-2.30; P =0.04], abdominal LNs [9.05 (95% CI: 8.16-9.94) vs 7.75 (95% CI: 6.62-8.88); MD = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.19-1.89; P =0.02] and LNs along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve [1.74 (95% CI: 1.04-2.43) vs 1.34 (95% CI: 0.32-2.35); MD = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.09-0.35; P <0.001] were significantly higher in the RAMIE group. RAMIE is associated with a lower incidence of pneumonia [9.61% (95% CI: 7.38%-11.84%) vs 14.74% (95% CI: 11.62%-18.15%); odds ratio = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.58-0.93; P =0.01]. Meanwhile, other perioperative outcomes, such as operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, 30/90-day mortality, and R0 resection, showed no significant difference between the two groups. Regarding long-term survival, the 3-year overall survival was similar in the two groups, whereas patients undergoing RAMIE had a higher rate of 3-year disease-free survival compared with the MIE group [77.98% (95% CI: 72.77%-82.43%) vs 70.65% (95% CI: 63.87%-77.00%); odds ratio = 1.42; 95% CI: 1.11-1.83; P =0.006]. A cumulative meta-analysis conducted for each outcome demonstrated relatively stable effects in the two groups. Analyses of each subgroup showed similar overall outcomes.CONCLUSIONS: RAMIE is a safe and feasible alternative to MIE in the treatment of resectable esophageal cancer with comparable perioperative outcomes and seems to indicate a possible superiority in LNs dissection in the abdominal cavity, and LNs dissected along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve and 3-year disease-free survival in particular in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Further randomized studies are needed to better evaluate the long-term benefits of RAMIE compared with MIE.

Attaining Proficiency in Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy While Maximizing Safety during Procedure Development

405. SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES OF ROBOT-ASSISTED ESOPHAGECTOMY

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) vs. hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: propensity score matched short-term outcome analysis of a European high-volume center

Assessment of Quality Outcomes and Learning Curve for Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive McKeown Esophagectomy

ASO Visual Abstract: the Current State of Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (ramie)—outcomes from the Upper GI International Robotic Association (UGIRA) Esophageal Registry

Analysis of training pathway to reach expert performance levels based on proficiency-based progression in robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE)

The Current State of Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE): Outcomes from the Upper GI International Robotic Association (UGIRA) Esophageal Registry

Robotic-Assisted Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy for cancer: An initial experience

Robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy

Learning Curve for Robot-Assisted Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy.

Efficacy and Perioperative Safety of Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

Robot-assisted Versus Conventional Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Early Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial: the RAMIE Trial

Technical Details of the Abdominal Part During Full Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy.

Robotic Versus Conventional Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Meta-analysis

Hybrid Laparoscopic Versus Fully Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: an International Propensity-Score Matched Analysis of Perioperative Outcome

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

Current status of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: what is the real benefit?

A Safe and Effective Anastomotic Technique for Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Oesophagectomy: Reverse-puncture Anastomosis

Short-term and long-term results of robot-assisted esophagectomy in cT3br/T4b esophageal cancer at initial diagnosis: Comparison with conventional thoracoscopic surgery.

A comparative review of minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy: technical considerations, variations, and outcomes