Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Updates in Surgery 3/2021

20.05.2021 | Review Article

Robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, a review of the technique

verfasst von: Konstantinos Chouliaras, Steven Hochwald, Moshim Kukar

Erschienen in: Updates in Surgery | Ausgabe 3/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Esophageal resection is a key component of the multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy is gaining widespread approval amongst few centers with promising early data. There is significant variability in the operative approach utilized by different centers and this review describes, step-by-step, the operative technique at a high-volume tertiary center. The cornerstone of management is individualized surgical approach, based on patient, tumor and technical factors. Although our approach is based on aforementioned factors, our preferred approach is an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and this review focuses on that. The procedure is broken down into three key parts, starting with an abdominal exploration and creation of the gastric conduit, placement of jejunostomy tube, moving to thoracic mobilization and creation of the side-side 6 cm stapled esophagogastric anastomosis with a final abdominal portion to assure proper positioning of the conduit and reducing redundancy. This approach is fully robotic and a side to side anastomosis facilitates the creation of a widely patent anastomosis therefore minimizing the risk of anastomotic leaks and strictures. Our experience with minimally invasive esophagectomy, as has been previously published, is associated with a 5.1% of anastomotic leak and 7.6% of anastomotic stricture. The robotic platform further optimizes this technique and helps us safely accomplish a side to side stapled anastomosis. Superior instrument dexterity in a restricted thoracic space is facilitated by intracorporeal suturing and robotic stapling. Thus, it obviates the need for a larger thoracotomy incision, which is typically needed for an EEA anastomosis, and that is traditionally associated with higher stricture rate.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Pohl H, Sirovich B, Welch HG (2010) Esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence: are we reaching the peak? Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 19(6):1468–1470CrossRef Pohl H, Sirovich B, Welch HG (2010) Esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence: are we reaching the peak? Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 19(6):1468–1470CrossRef
2.
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Biere SSAY, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW, Bonavina L, Rosman C, Garcia JR et al (2012) Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 379(9829):1887–1892CrossRefPubMed Biere SSAY, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW, Bonavina L, Rosman C, Garcia JR et al (2012) Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 379(9829):1887–1892CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Straatman J, van der Wielen N, Cuesta MA, Daams F, Roig Garcia J, Bonavina L et al (2017) Minimally invasive versus open esophageal resection: three-year follow-up of the previously reported randomized controlled trial: the TIME Trial. Ann Surg 266(2):232–236CrossRefPubMed Straatman J, van der Wielen N, Cuesta MA, Daams F, Roig Garcia J, Bonavina L et al (2017) Minimally invasive versus open esophageal resection: three-year follow-up of the previously reported randomized controlled trial: the TIME Trial. Ann Surg 266(2):232–236CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Mariette C, Markar SR, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS, Meunier B, Pezet D, Collet D et al (2019) Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 380(2):152–162CrossRefPubMed Mariette C, Markar SR, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS, Meunier B, Pezet D, Collet D et al (2019) Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 380(2):152–162CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Franchetti Y, Catalano PJ, Swanson S, Sugarbaker DJ et al (2015) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: results of a prospective phase II multicenter trial-the eastern cooperative oncology group (E2202) study. Ann Surg 261(4):702–707CrossRefPubMed Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Franchetti Y, Catalano PJ, Swanson S, Sugarbaker DJ et al (2015) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: results of a prospective phase II multicenter trial-the eastern cooperative oncology group (E2202) study. Ann Surg 261(4):702–707CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O, Levy RM, Keeley S, Shende M et al (2012) Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg 256(1):95–103CrossRefPubMed Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O, Levy RM, Keeley S, Shende M et al (2012) Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg 256(1):95–103CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Ben-David K, Tuttle R, Kukar M, Rossidis G, Hochwald SN (2016) Minimally invasive esophagectomy utilizing a stapled side-to-side anastomosis is safe in the western patient population. Ann Surg Oncol 23(9):3056–3062CrossRefPubMed Ben-David K, Tuttle R, Kukar M, Rossidis G, Hochwald SN (2016) Minimally invasive esophagectomy utilizing a stapled side-to-side anastomosis is safe in the western patient population. Ann Surg Oncol 23(9):3056–3062CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat van Hillegersberg R, Boone J, Draaisma WA, Broeders IA, Giezeman MJ, Borel Rinkes IH (2006) First experience with robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagolymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc 20(9):1435–1439CrossRefPubMed van Hillegersberg R, Boone J, Draaisma WA, Broeders IA, Giezeman MJ, Borel Rinkes IH (2006) First experience with robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagolymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc 20(9):1435–1439CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat van der Sluis PC, van der Horst S, May AM, Schippers C, Brosens LAA, Joore HCA et al (2019) Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 269(4):621–630CrossRefPubMed van der Sluis PC, van der Horst S, May AM, Schippers C, Brosens LAA, Joore HCA et al (2019) Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 269(4):621–630CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Peng JS, Nurkin SJ, Hochwald SN, Kukar M (2020) Technique for robotic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with 6-cm linear stapled side-to-side anastomosis. Ann Surg Oncol 27(3):824CrossRefPubMed Peng JS, Nurkin SJ, Hochwald SN, Kukar M (2020) Technique for robotic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with 6-cm linear stapled side-to-side anastomosis. Ann Surg Oncol 27(3):824CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat van Hagen PHM, van Lanschot JJ et al (2012) Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med 366:2074–2084CrossRefPubMed van Hagen PHM, van Lanschot JJ et al (2012) Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med 366:2074–2084CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Shapiro J, van Lanschot JJB, Hulshof MCCM, van Hagen P, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Wijnhoven BPL et al (2015) Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for oesophageal or junctional cancer (CROSS): long-term results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 16(9):1090–1098CrossRefPubMed Shapiro J, van Lanschot JJB, Hulshof MCCM, van Hagen P, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Wijnhoven BPL et al (2015) Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for oesophageal or junctional cancer (CROSS): long-term results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 16(9):1090–1098CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Alderson D, Cunningham D, Nankivell M, Blazeby JM, Griffin SM, Crellin A et al (2017) Neoadjuvant cisplatin and fluorouracil versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine followed by resection in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (UK MRC OE05): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 18(9):1249–1260CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Alderson D, Cunningham D, Nankivell M, Blazeby JM, Griffin SM, Crellin A et al (2017) Neoadjuvant cisplatin and fluorouracil versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine followed by resection in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (UK MRC OE05): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 18(9):1249–1260CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Haverkamp L, Seesing MF, Ruurda JP, Boone J, Hillegersberg RV (2017) Worldwide trends in surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer. Dis Esophagus 30(1):1–7PubMed Haverkamp L, Seesing MF, Ruurda JP, Boone J, Hillegersberg RV (2017) Worldwide trends in surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer. Dis Esophagus 30(1):1–7PubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Singh D, Maley RH, Santucci T et al (2001) Experience and technique of stapled mechanical cervical esophagogastric anastomosis. Ann Thorac Surg 71:419–424CrossRefPubMed Singh D, Maley RH, Santucci T et al (2001) Experience and technique of stapled mechanical cervical esophagogastric anastomosis. Ann Thorac Surg 71:419–424CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Orringer MB, Marshall B, Iannettoni MD (2000) Eliminating the cervical esophagogastric anastomotic leak with a side-to-side stapled anastomosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 119:277–288CrossRefPubMed Orringer MB, Marshall B, Iannettoni MD (2000) Eliminating the cervical esophagogastric anastomotic leak with a side-to-side stapled anastomosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 119:277–288CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Ercan S, Rice TW, Murthy SC, Rybicki LA, Blackstone EH (2005) Does esophagogastric anastomotic technique influence the outcome of patients with esophageal cancer? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 129(3):623–631CrossRefPubMed Ercan S, Rice TW, Murthy SC, Rybicki LA, Blackstone EH (2005) Does esophagogastric anastomotic technique influence the outcome of patients with esophageal cancer? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 129(3):623–631CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Liu QX, Min JX, Deng XF, Dai JG (2014) Is hand sewing comparable with stapling for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy? A meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 20(45):17218–17226CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Liu QX, Min JX, Deng XF, Dai JG (2014) Is hand sewing comparable with stapling for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy? A meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 20(45):17218–17226CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Deng XF, Liu QX, Zhou D, Min JX, Dai JG (2015) Hand-sewn vs linearly stapled esophagogastric anastomosis for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 21(15):4757–4764CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Deng XF, Liu QX, Zhou D, Min JX, Dai JG (2015) Hand-sewn vs linearly stapled esophagogastric anastomosis for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 21(15):4757–4764CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Okusanya OT, Sarkaria IS, Hess NR, Nason KS, Sanchez MV, Levy RM et al (2017) Robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE): the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center initial experience. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 6(2):179–185CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Okusanya OT, Sarkaria IS, Hess NR, Nason KS, Sanchez MV, Levy RM et al (2017) Robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE): the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center initial experience. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 6(2):179–185CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Sarkaria IS, Rizk NP, Grosser R, Goldman D, Finley DJ, Ghanie A et al (2016) Attaining proficiency in robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy while maximizing safety during procedure development. Innov (Phila) 11(4):268–273CrossRef Sarkaria IS, Rizk NP, Grosser R, Goldman D, Finley DJ, Ghanie A et al (2016) Attaining proficiency in robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy while maximizing safety during procedure development. Innov (Phila) 11(4):268–273CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Yang Y, Zhang X, Li B, Li Z, Sun Y, Mao T et al (2019) Robot-assisted esophagectomy (RAE) versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: protocol for a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial (RAMIE trial, robot-assisted minimally invasive Esophagectomy). BMC Cancer 19(1):608CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Yang Y, Zhang X, Li B, Li Z, Sun Y, Mao T et al (2019) Robot-assisted esophagectomy (RAE) versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: protocol for a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial (RAMIE trial, robot-assisted minimally invasive Esophagectomy). BMC Cancer 19(1):608CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Chao YK, Li ZG, Wen YW, Kim DJ, Park SY, Chang YL et al (2019) Robotic-assisted esophagectomy vs video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (REVATE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 20(1):346CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chao YK, Li ZG, Wen YW, Kim DJ, Park SY, Chang YL et al (2019) Robotic-assisted esophagectomy vs video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (REVATE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 20(1):346CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang Y, Han Y, Gan Q, Xiang J, Jin R, Chen K et al (2019) Early outcomes of robot-assisted versus thoracoscopic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched study. Ann Surg Oncol 26(5):1284–1291CrossRefPubMed Zhang Y, Han Y, Gan Q, Xiang J, Jin R, Chen K et al (2019) Early outcomes of robot-assisted versus thoracoscopic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched study. Ann Surg Oncol 26(5):1284–1291CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, a review of the technique
verfasst von
Konstantinos Chouliaras
Steven Hochwald
Moshim Kukar
Publikationsdatum
20.05.2021
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Updates in Surgery / Ausgabe 3/2021
Print ISSN: 2038-131X
Elektronische ISSN: 2038-3312
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-021-01000-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2021

Updates in Surgery 3/2021 Zur Ausgabe

Foreword

Foreword

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.