Abstract
Purpose
Robotic-assisted procedures are increasingly used in esophageal cancer surgery. We compared postoperative complications and early oncological outcomes following hybrid robotic-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (Rob-E) and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (Open-E), performed in a single mid-volume center, in the context of evolving preoperative patient and tumor characteristics over two decades.
Methods
We evaluated prospectively collected data from a single center from 1999 to 2020 including 321 patients that underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, 76 underwent Rob-E, and 245 Open-E. To compare perioperative outcomes, a 1:1 case-matched analysis was performed. Endpoints included postoperative morbidity and 30-day mortality.
Results
Preoperative characteristics revealed increased rates of adenocarcinomas and wider use of neoadjuvant treatment over time. A larger number of patients with higher ASA grades were operated with Rob-E. In case-matched cohorts, there were no differences in the overall morbidity (69.7% in Rob-E, 60.5% in Open-E, p value 0.307), highest Clavien-Dindo grade per patient (43.4% vs. 38.2% grade I or II, p value 0.321), comprehensive complication index (median 20.9 in both groups, p value 0.401), and 30-day mortality (2.6% in Rob-E, 3.9% in Open-E, p value 1.000). Similar median numbers of lymph nodes were harvested (24.5 in Rob-E, 23 in Open-E, p value 0.204), and comparable rates of R0-status (96.1% vs. 93.4%, p value 0.463) and distribution of postoperative UICC stages (overall p value 0.616) were observed.
Conclusions
Our study demonstrates similar postoperative complications and early oncological outcomes after Rob-E and Open-E. However, the selection criteria for Rob-E appeared to be less restrictive than those of Open-E surgery.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Esophageal cancer is the 8th most common cancer worldwide and the 6th leading cause of cancer death [1, 2].
Historically, squamous cell carcinoma was the predominant histological type worldwide. However, over the past decades, a demographic difference has emerged with squamous cell carcinomas being predominant in Asia and adenocarcinomas being more common in Europe and North America. This can be explained by the increased incidence of risk factors for adenocarcinoma such as gastroesophageal reflux disease and obesity in the western world [2, 3].
Overall, the majority of esophageal cancers are detected at a late stage, which severely affects treatment options [3]. Therapeutic regimens vary from local treatment for lesions that do not exceed the submucosa, to surgical esophagectomy as well as radio- and chemotherapy for more advanced tumor stages [2,3,4].
Within the last decades, the surgical approach has evolved, and new techniques including minimally invasive and robotic-assisted procedures have been adopted [5]. However, the literature is highly heterogenous with publications comparing different surgical techniques: open esophagectomies with laparotomy and thoracotomy, totally minimally invasive procedures with laparoscopy and thoracoscopy, and robotic-, laparoscopically, or thoracoscopically assisted esophagectomies, and include different approaches such as 2-stage Ivor Lewis and 3-stage McKeown procedures. Some of these studies show reduced rates of postoperative morbidity using totally minimally invasive or minimally invasive-assisted techniques while achieving the same oncological outcomes as open procedures [5,6,7].
In our center, Ivor Lewis esophagectomy has been routinely performed for the past 20 years [8, 9]. In 2015, we adopted a robotic approach for the thoracic phase of this operation. However, to obtain optimal gastric tube mobilization and preparation, we have continued to perform the abdominal phase of the Ivor Lewis esophagectomy using open surgery. This hybrid Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, open abdominal and a robotic thoracic phase, is currently the standard practice in our institution.
To provide a reliable comparison between these two surgical techniques, in this study, we analyzed postoperative morbidity and early oncological efficacy after hybrid robotic-assisted thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (Rob-E) and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (Open-E), which were performed in a single mid-volume center, within the context of evolving preoperative patient and tumor characteristics over a period of 21 years.
Methods
Patients
The study included all patients that underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer from January 1999 to December 2020 at the University Center for Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease (St. Claraspital, Clarunis, Basel, Switzerland). Exclusion criteria were transhiatal or emergency procedures. All patients provided general consent, and the study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Northwestern Switzerland.
Data collection
Data were prospectively collected and recorded in an institutional study registry database (Fig. 1). Raw data included patients’ characteristics such as age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) grade, pre- and postoperative tumor features including histological type, tumor localization and stage, (neo-)adjuvant therapy, postoperative morbidity, 30-day mortality, and duration of hospitalization.
Study endpoints
Endpoints included the rate of postoperative complications as well as the 30-day mortality. Complications were defined as any event requiring a deviation of the therapeutic regimen. All complications occurring within the index hospitalization were recorded, and their severity was assessed using the Clavien-Dindo classification and the comprehensive complication index (CCI) [10, 11].
Case-matched analysis
To compensate for significant differences in preoperative features observed between patients operated with Rob-E or Open-E, we performed a 1:1 case-matched analysis for age, sex, ASA grade, neoadjuvant treatment, UICC stage, histological tumor type, and tumor location (Table 2).
Statistical analysis
Nominal and ordinal data are presented as counts and percentage, interval and ratio data are presented as median, lower and upper quartile for independent, non-normally distributed data. Analyses were performed using Fisher’s exact test and Mann–Whitney-U test as appropriate. For an adequate analysis of the postoperative details including the complications, a 1:1 case-matched analysis was performed regarding age, sex, ASA grade, neoadjuvant treatment, histology, tumor localization, and stage. p values < 0.05 were considered as statistically significant. Analyses were conducted using SigmaStat 4.0 and Stata/MP 17.
Surgical technique
All surgeries were performed by two senior surgeons. In 2015, the first senior surgeon, who performed all Open-E surgeries until then transferred his skills to the second senior surgeon over a time of 1 year, in which both surgeons were present during all surgeries. The second senior surgeon was already very experienced and had performed numerous esophagostomies at another institution and over 500 robotic surgeries. Within another year, the transition to Rob-E was achieved by the second senior surgeon. Surgical steps in Rob-E were taught to fellow surgeons with a two-console concept to ensure teaching and education.
The Ivor Lewis esophagectomy consists of an abdominal phase for gastric mobilization, abdominal lymph node dissection, and construction of a tubular stomach and a thoracic phase for mediastinal lymph node dissection and the intrathoracic anastomosis.
In both Rob-E and Open-E, the abdominal phase was conducted via a median laparotomy. In Open-E, a right thoracotomy was performed during the thoracic phase [8, 9], whereas from October 2015, in Rob-E, this part was conducted using the da Vinci Xi robot (Fig. 2). During the thoracic phase of Rob-E, the right lung was excluded using a double-lumen endotracheal tube and isolated left lung ventilation. In Open-E, an end-to-end esophagogastrostomy was performed using a circular stapler. In Rob-E, the anastomosis was most frequently performed as an end-to-side esophagogastrostomy in a continuously sutured manor (Fig. 3). In Open-E, a pyloromyotomy was performed when the gastric tube was constructed; in Rob-E, this step was left out.
Early oncological outcome evaluation
Postoperative oncological outcome was assessed by analyzing residual tumor status and the number of harvested lymph nodes. In addition, the postoperative UICC stage was also evaluated.
Postoperative regimen
All patients were admitted to the intensive care unit postoperatively. Total parenteral nutrition was initiated, and a nasogastric tube was left in situ for 7 days postoperatively. Patients were transferred to the general surgical ward based on their clinical course. On the 7th postoperative day, a radiological control of the anastomosis was performed, followed by the removal of the nasogastric tube and administration of peroral liquids. Regular diet was resumed progressively.
Results
Between January 1999 and December 2020, 321 patients underwent an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer at the University Center for Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease (St. Claraspital, Clarunis, Basel, Switzerland). A total of 245 patients were treated with an open procedure (Open-E), whereas 76 were treated with hybrid robotic-assisted surgery (Rob-E) (Fig. 1). Procedures per year and type of approach for unmatched surgeries are shown in Fig. 4. (More details on outcomes for the unmatched surgeries are provided in the supplemental material Table S1, Figure S1 and Figure S2.)
Evolution of preoperative patient and tumor characteristics
Preoperative patient and tumor characteristics of all treated patients are shown in Table 1. There was a similar distribution of age and sex between Rob-E and Open-E with a median of 69.5 years vs. 67 years (p value 0.129) and 15.8% vs. 22.9% female patients (p value 0.203). However, ASA grades differed significantly (overall p value 0.007). In Rob-E, the most frequent ASA grade was III (64.5%), whereas in Open-E, most patients had an ASA grade of II (48.6%).
As Rob-E was introduced in 2015 and Open-E was performed from 1999 to 2015, we were able to evaluate the evolution of preoperative characteristics over time. We observed a significantly higher rate of adenocarcinomas and lower rate of squamous cell carcinomas in Rob-E compared to Open-E (93.4% vs. 78.4% and 5.3% vs. 21.6%, overall p value < 0.001). Furthermore, neoadjuvant treatment rates were significantly higher in patients undergoing Rob-E compared to Open-E (82.9% vs. 55.9%, p value < 0.001).
In the Rob-E cohort, there were significantly more further aborally located tumors with a higher percentage of Siewert 2 [12] carcinomas (31.6% vs. 12.7%, overall p value < 0.001). Yet, the distribution of tumor stages according to the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) classification was similar, with UICC III being most common in both cohorts (53.9% vs. 45.7%, overall p value 0.893).
Case-matched analysis
The significant differences in preoperative features observed in our mid-volume center between patients operated with Rob-E or Open-E reflect the change in basic patient and tumor characteristics and esophageal cancer treatment regimen over the past two decades. However, this precluded a reliable comparative analysis of perioperative morbidity and short-term oncological outcome. The performed 1:1 case-matched analysis ensured an adequate comparison of these surgical techniques (Table 2).
A detailed list of postoperative complications as observed in the case-matched cohorts is shown in Table 3 (for all cases, see supplemental material Table S1). There were no significant differences in the overall morbidity with a percentage of 69.7% in Rob-E and 60.5% in Open-E (p value 0.307). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the distribution of the highest Clavien-Dindo grade per patient with grade I or II being most common in both cohorts (43.4% vs. 38.2%, overall p value 0.321), or the comprehensive complication index with a median of 20.9 in both groups (p value 0.401). A 30-day mortality did not differ either (2.6% vs. 3.9%, p value 1.000).
The rate of surgical reintervention was similar (5.3% vs. 7.9%, p value 0.745). In Rob-E, surgical reintervention was necessary in four cases of a pleural empyema, two of which were accompanied by an esophagobronchial fistula. In Open-E, surgical reintervention was necessary in six cases. In four cases due to an anastomotic leakage, one of which was accompanied by a pleural empyema, and another by a cutaneous wound infection. Furthermore, one case of a chylothorax accompanied by a cutaneous wound infection, and one further case of a wound infection also required surgical reintervention.
Regarding the rate of anastomotic insufficiencies, there were no significant differences (7.9% vs. 5.3%, p value 0.745). However, in Rob-E, all insufficiencies were treated with endoscopic insertion of a stent or an endo-sponge®, whereas in Open-E, all insufficiencies required surgical reintervention. For the latter, it is noteworthy that in one case in 2008, endo-sponge® therapy was not available at our institution; one case treated in 2018 showed failure to treatment with endo-sponge® and stent, and the other two cases were aggravated by the presence of a sepsis and a mediastinitis. There were no significant differences in the rates of esophagobronchial fistulas (2.6% vs. 0.0%, p value 0.487), chylothoraces (1.3% vs. 1.3%, p value 1.000), or pleural empyemas (5.3% vs. 1.3%, p value 0.367).
The most frequent complication in both cohorts was the Clavien-Dindo grade II pneumonia requiring antibiotic treatment (30.3% vs. 25.0%, p value 0.587). The duration of hospitalization was similar with a median of 20 and 18.5 days, respectively (p value 0.368). An intraoperative conversion from Rob-E to Open-E was never necessary.
Early oncological outcomes
A comparison of postoperative oncological details revealed no significant differences in patients treated with Rob-E or Open-E, as shown in Table 4 (for all cases, see supplemental material Figure S2). The median number of harvested lymph nodes (24.5 vs. 23, p value 0.204), as well as the residual tumor status with a R0-status of 96.1% in Rob-E and 93.4% in Open-E (p value 0.463) were similar. The distribution of postoperative UICC stages was comparable with stages III and I being most common in both cohorts (30.3% vs. 31.6% and 30.3% vs. 30.3%, overall p value 0.616). Surgery was followed by an adjuvant therapy in 22.4% of Rob-E and 28.9% of Open-E (p value 0.458).
Discussion
Esophageal cancer is a challenging disease, amongst others because of late diagnosis due to the lack of symptoms in early stages and demanding surgical treatment with several possible surgical approaches [13, 14]. Our data, collected over a period of more than 20 years, allowed us to investigate, from a single mid-volume center point of view, the evolution of the basic patient and tumor characteristics over time.
We observed an increased rate of adenocarcinomas at the expense of squamous cell carcinomas. Overall, squamous cell carcinoma is still the predominant histological type worldwide; however, current literature suggests a drift towards an increased incidence of adenocarcinomas in North America and Europe, which is consistent with our data [13,14,15]. Furthermore, in our center, there has been an increased rate of neoadjuvant treatments performed over time. This reflects the change in esophageal cancer treatment over the past decade, which has largely evolved towards a multimodal approach. Several studies have shown that the survival of resectable esophageal cancer can be improved by neoadjuvant therapy, which is therefore now emerging as the standard preoperative treatment [14, 16, 17].
Over the last two decades, surgical treatment of esophageal cancer has evolved significantly. A vast range of surgical approaches, including open procedures, minimally invasive techniques, or combinations of both is currently under evaluation. In the literature, advantages of minimally invasive techniques, including hybrid approaches, have been demonstrated [4,5,6,7], but general recommendations have not emerged yet, and the choice remains within the surgical team. Considering the high heterogeneity of published data, the evaluation of more homogeneous results from a single mid-volume institution might provide important insights.
Over a period of 21 years, we performed 16 procedures on average and consider ourselves a mid-volume institution (Fig. 4). All surgeries were performed by only two surgeons and make this study of special interest. Therefore, the presented dates are representative for a mid- to high-volume center as regards of surgery per surgeon and year. Good outcomes in comparison with the literature [18, 19] might be ascribed to the experience of a highly specialized team that developed over two decades.
In the past 5 years, we have adopted a standardized, hybrid, robotic-assisted approach for Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Given the fact, that in our study the abdominal phase is conducted in the same manner regardless of surgical approach, the outcomes basically reflect the thoracic phase of the Rob-E. Our final goal for the future will be a total robotic resection and reconstruction which is in line with the German AMWF guidelines suggesting a total minimal invasive approach or a combination of minimally invasive and open techniques (hybrid techniques) [20]. We are convinced to have a better understanding of the single changes, which influence outcomes, when adoptions are made gradually, as compared to a direct change from Open-E to a totally minimally invasive technique. We decided to omit thoracotomy first, as it seems more invasive than laparotomy. In the future, with a minimally invasive technique for the abdominal part in experienced hands, we expect a further decrease in the rate of pulmonary complications.
Overall, our results may suggest that the introduction of the hybrid Rob-E technique in our center has made surgeons more confident in performing higher risk surgeries as larger numbers of patients with higher ASA grades were operated. Thus, the criteria that were applied for the patients’ eligibility for surgery appear to be less restrictive in Rob-E compared to Open-E, benefiting patients with advanced stages or increased comorbidities.
To compare the outcomes between Rob-E and Open-E more reliably, we generated case-matched cohorts, taking into account a number of important variables potentially impacting on postoperative morbidities and clinical outcome.
We could show that there are no significant differences related to the use of Rob-E or Open-E, with regard to overall complications and 30-day mortality. This is consistent with previously published studies comparing similar surgical techniques [21]. Moreover, our rates of complications such as anastomotic leaks, surgical reinterventions, and mortality for both Rob-E and Open-E are comparable to data from benchmarking reports [22, 23]. For this study, the definition of anastomotic leakage is an endoscopically proven leakage. Endoscopy was only performed in case of a suspicious upper GI-contrast study 7 days postoperatively or if leakage was clinically suspected within 30 days. A recent register study reports much higher leakage rates with 33% for hand-sewn anastomoses [18]. A direct data comparison is questionable because of a missing definition of leakage, severity of the leakage, therapeutic consequences, and time of leakage in this registry study. We presume that while the registry study overestimates leakage rates, we might not document all clinically silent leakages because of a missing routine postoperative endoscopy. The German Cancer Society (DKG) demands for a leakage rate below 15%. If the rate is higher, it is considered noticeable and further explanations are demanded [24]. This supports the presumption of overestimation in the register study.
Literature for thoracoscopic esophagectomy shows a trend towards circular stapled or semi-mechanical anastomosis instead of hand-sewn anastomosis [25,26,27]. Semi-mechanical anastomosis enlarges the cross-sectional area and might prevent postoperative strictures of the anastomosis. Some authors also promote semi-mechanical anastomosis for robotic resection [28], although this question has not yet been definitely clarified. However, there are groups including ourselves promoting a return to hand-sewn anastomoses in view of the robotic advantages such as enhanced range of motion [29]. It is presumed that stenosis is a late sequela of apparent or inapparent anastomotic leakage. Leakage rate of 7.9% after robotic-assisted esophagectomy in the current study is far below the rate of both the hand-sewn and the stapled group in the UGIRA registry [18]. However, this direct comparison must be interpreted very cautiously, since the anastomotic leak was not consistently defined in the same way. Furthermore, this study is missing long-term results, and therefore no conclusion can be drawn as to the incidence of stenosis.
Interestingly, while neoadjuvant treatment has widely been shown to be associated with better overall survival [14, 16], its effect on perioperative morbidity is described controversially in the literature [30, 31]. In this context, it is reassuring that similarly good results were obtained in both Rob-E and Open-E.
Limitations of our study should be acknowledged. These include the lack of long-term follow-up and randomization. Furthermore, the data were collected in a single mid-volume institution and therefore only represent a relatively small cohort. Furthermore, diagnostic methods and management of postoperative morbidity have also evolved over time. However, given that our data is from a single center over a long period of time, it reliably reflects the evolution of patient characteristics and adoption of minimally invasive esophageal cancer surgery.
Conclusion
Our results show that a higher percentage of patients with ASA grade III was treated after the introduction of the hybrid robotic-assisted thoracoscopic procedure in our institution, demonstrating a lower threshold in determining patients’ eligibility for surgery. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications and early oncological outcomes when comparing Rob-E and Open-E. Hence, we consider both procedures safe and effective.
References
International Agency for Research on Cancer (2021) Cancer today. http://gco.iarc.fr/today/home. Accessed 01 November 2021.
Domper Arnal MJ, Ferrández Arenas Á, Lanas Arbeloa Á (2015) Esophageal cancer: risk factors, screening and endoscopic treatment in Western and Eastern countries. World J Gastroenterol 21:7933–7943. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i26.7933
Rubenstein JH, Shaheen NJ (2015) Epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Gastroenterology 149:302-317.e1. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2015.04.053
Xu QL, Li H, Zhu YJ, Xu G (2020) The treatments and postoperative complications of esophageal cancer: a review. J Cardiothorac Surg 15:163. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-020-01202-2
Biere SS, Maas KW, Bonavina L et al (2011) Traditional invasive vs. minimally invasive esophagectomy: a multi-center, randomized trial (TIME-trial). BMC Surg 11:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-11-2
Mariette C, Markar SR, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS et al (2019) Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 380:152–162. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1805101
Siaw-Acheampong K, Kamarajah SK, Gujjuri R, Bundred JR, Singh P, Griffiths EA (2020) Minimally invasive techniques for transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BJS Open 4:787–803. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50330
Däster S, Soysal SD, Stoll L, Peterli R, von Flüe M, Ackermann C (2014) Long-term quality of life after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. World J Surg 38:2345–2351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2576-1
Däster S, Soysal SD, Koechlin L, Stoll L, Peterli R, von Flüe M, Ackermann C (2016) Perioperative outcomes of esophageal cancer surgery in a mid-volume institution in the era of centralization. Langenbecks Arch Surg 401:787–795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-016-1477-1
Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J, Puhan MA, Clavien PA (2013) The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg 258:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318296c732
Bolliger M, Kroehnert JA, Molineus F, Kandioler D, Schindl M, Riss P (2018) Experiences with the standardized classification of surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo) in general surgery patients. Eur Surg 50:256–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10353-018-0551z
Siewert JR, Stein HJ (1998) Classification of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastricjunction. Br J Surg 85:1457–1459. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.1998.00940.x
Enzinger PC, Mayer RJ (2003) Esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 341:1738–1748. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra035010
Lagergren J, Smyth E, Cunningham D, Lagergren P (2017) Oesophageal cancer. Lancet 390:2383–2396. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31462-9
Zhang Y (2013) Epidemiology of esophageal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 19:5598–5606. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v19.i34.5598
Pasquali S, Yim G, Vohra RS et al (2017) Survival after neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments compared to surgery alone for resectable esophageal carcinoma: a network meta-analysis. Ann Surg 265:481–491. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001905
Lordich F, Mariette C, Haustermans K, Obermannová AD (2016) Oesophageal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 27(suppl 5):v50–v57. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw329
Kingma BF, Grimminger PP, van der Sluis PC, van Det MJ, Kouwenhoven EA, Chao Y-K et al (2020) Worldwide techniques and outcomes in robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE): results from the Multicenter International Registry. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004550
Müller-Stich BP, Probst P, Nienhüser H, Fazeli S, Senft J, Kalkum E et al (2021) Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and individual patient data comparing minimally invasive with open oesophagectomy for cancer. Br J Surg 108(9):1026–1033. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znab278
Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (2021) “S3-Leitlinie Diagnostik und Therapie der Plattenepithelkarzinome und Adenokarzinome des Ösophagus (Version 3) ”. https://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/leitlinien/oesophaguskarzinom/. Accessed 29 February 2022
Meredith KL, Maramara T, Blinn P, Lee D, Huston J, Shridhar R (2020) Comparative perioperative outcomes by esophagectomy surgical technique. J Gastrointest Surg 24:1261–1268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-019-04269-y
Low DE, Kuppusamy MK, Alderson D et al (2019) Benchmarking complications associated with esophagectomy. Ann Surg 269(2):291–298. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002611
Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Study Group on behalf of the West Midland Research Collaborative (2021) Comparison of short-term outcomes from the International Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA), the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG), and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA). BJS Open5(3). https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrab010
Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft DKG (2022) “Zertifizierung der Deutschen Krebsgesellschaft: Kennzahlen Speiseröhrenkreszentren”. https://www.krebsgesellschaft.de/zertdokumente.html. Accessed 28 February 2022
Blackmon SH, Correa AM, Wynn B, Hofstetter WL, Martin LW, Mehran RJ et al (2007) Propensity-matched analysis of three techniques for intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis. Ann Thorac Surg 83(5):1805–1813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.01.046
Honda M, Kuriyama A, Noma H, Nunobe S, Furukawa TA (2013) Hand-sewn versus mechanical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 257(2):238–248. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31826d4723
Zhang X, Yu Q, Tian H, Lv D (2018) Meta-analysis of stapled versus hand-sewn esophagogastric anastomosis. Int J Clin Exp Med 11(11):11606–11618. https://e-century.us/files/ijcem/11/11/ijcem0078143.pdf
Cerfolio RJ, Wei B, Hawn MT, Minnich DJ (2016) Robotic esophagectomy for cancer: early results and lessons learned. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 28(1):160–169. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semtcvs.2015.10.006
Van Boxel G, Hillegersberg R van, Ruurda J (2019) Outcomes and complications after robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy. J Vis Surg 5(0). https://doi.org/10.21037/jovs.2019.02.03.
Mungo B, Molena D, Stem M, Yang SC, Battafarano RJ, Brock MV et al (2015) Does neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer increase postoperative morbidity or mortality? Dis Esophagus 28:644–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/dote.12251
Sathornviriyapong S, Matsuda A, Miyashita M, Matsumoto S, Sakurazawa N, Kawano Y, Yamada M, Uchida E (2016) Impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiation on short-term outcomes for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 23:3632–3640. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5298-9
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Basel. This study is funded by institutional means.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the article. Study conception and design as well as analysis and interpretation of data were performed by Fiorenzo V. Angehrn, Kerstin J. Neuschütz, Daniel C. Steinemann, and Martin Bolli. Lana Fourie, Alexander Wilhelm, Silvio Däster, Christoph Ackermann, and Markus von Flüe contributed with the acquisition of data and critically reviewed previous versions of the manuscript. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Kerstin J. Neuschütz and Fiorenzo V. Angehrn. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Fiorenzo V. Angehrn and Kerstin J. Neuschütz have contributed equally and share first authorship.
Daniel C. Steinemann and Martin Bolli have contributed equally and share senior last authorship.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Angehrn, F.V., Neuschütz, K.J., Fourie, L. et al. From open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy to a hybrid robotic-assisted thoracoscopic approach: a single-center experience over two decades. Langenbecks Arch Surg 407, 1421–1430 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-022-02497-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-022-02497-6