Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive McKeown Esophagectomy with a Four-Arm Platform: Technique and Early Experience
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17140/GOJ-1-105Keywords:
Esophageal cancer, Esophageal surgery, McKeown, Robot, Surgery/incisions/exposures/techniquesAbstract
Objectives: We report an early, single-institution experience of Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive McKeown Esophagectomy (RAMIME) using a four-arm platform. The technique details, rationale, complications, and pitfalls during procedure development are discussed.
Methods: This was a retrospective observational study.
Results: Nine of the 11 patients (median age: 57 years [range: 45-83]) had a complete (R0) resection; 10 were given induction treatment combined with chemoradiation. The median operative time was 795 min (range: 635-975). The median thoracoscopic console time was 270 min (range: 135-330). The median laparoscopic console time was 160 min (range: 150-260 min). The median blood loss was 300 cm3 (range: 100-650), and the median length of hospital stay was 18 days (range: 14-36). The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 28 (range: 9-39). No patients were converted to open procedures. Four patients had major complications;
one died of liver failure on postoperative day 16; and none had clinically significant anastomotic leaks.
Conclusions: RAMIME is feasible. With good understanding of the robotic concepts and a good robotic team, RAMIME is worth trying. In addition to its well-known benefits, RAMIME permits replacing one human assistant.
References
Luketich J, Pennathur A, Catalano PJ, et al. Results of a phase II multicenter study of minimally invasive esophagectomy (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study E2202). J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 4516.
Lazzarino AI, Nagpal K, Bottle A, Faiz O, Moorthy K, Aylin P. Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: trends of utilization and associated outcomes in England. Ann Surg. 2010; 252: 292-298. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181dd4e8c
Talamini MA, Chapman S, Horgan S, Melvin WS. A prospective analysis of 211 robotic-assisted surgical procedures. Surg Endosc. 2003; 17: 1521-1524. doi: 10.1007/s00464-002- 8853-3
Bodner J, Wykypiel H, Wetscher G, Schmid T. First experiences with the da Vinci operating robot in thoracic surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2004; 25: 844-851. doi: 10.1016/j. ejcts.2004.02.001
Dapri G, Himpens J, Cadiere GB. Robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy with the patient in the prone position. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2006; 16: 278-285. doi: 10.1089/lap.2006.16.278
van Hillegersberg R, Boone J, Draaisma WA, Broeders IA, Giezeman MJ, Borel Rinkes IH. First experience with robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagolymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2006; 20: 1435-1439. doi: 10.1007/s00464-005-0674-8
Boone J, Schipper ME, Moojen WA, Borel Rinkes IH, Cromheecke GJ, van Hillegersberg R. Robot-assisted thoracoscopic oesophagectomy for cancer. Br J Surg. 2009; 96: 878-886. doi: 10.1002/bjs.6647
Kim DJ, Hyung WJ, Lee CY, et al. Thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: feasibility and safety of robotic assistance in the prone position. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010; 139: 53.e1-59.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.05.030
Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Ceribelli C, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic management of cardia carcinoma according to Siewert recommendations. Int J Med Robot. 2011; 7: 170-177. doi: 10.1002/rcs.385
Weksler B, Sharma P, Moudgill N, Chojnacki KA, Rosato EL. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy is equivalent to thoracoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus. 2011; 25(5): 403-409. doi: 10.1111/j.1442- 2050.2011.01246.x
Kernstine KH, DeArmond DT, Shamoun DM, Campos JH. The first series of completely robotic esophagectomies with three-field lymphadenectomy: initial experience. Surg Endosc. 2007; 21: 2285-2292. doi: 10.1007/s00464-007-9405-7
Sarkaria IS, Rizk NP, Finley DJ, et al. Combined thoracoscopic and laparoscopic robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy using a four-arm platform: experience, technique and cautions during early procedure development. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013; 1: 1-9. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezt013
Trotti A, Colevas AD, Setser A, et al. CTCAE v3.0: development of a comprehensive grading system for the adverse effects of cancer treatment. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2003; 13: 176- 181. doi: 10.1016/S1053-4296(03)00031-6
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.0. Website: http://www.eortc.be/services/doc/ctc/ CTCAE_4.03_2010-06-14_QuickReference_5x7.pdf. 2010; Accessed 2013.
Huang CK, Lo CH, Asim S, Houng JY, Huang SF. A novel technique for liver retraction in laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2011; 21: 676-679. doi: 10.1007/s11695-010- 0191-2
Luketich JD, Alvelo-Rivera M, Buenaventura PO, et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcomes in 222 patients. Ann Surg. 2003; 238: 486-494.
Wang BY, Tsao LC, Cheng CY, Lin CH, Shih CS, Liu CC. Experiences with a simple laparoscopic gastric tube construction. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013; 8: 14. doi: 10.1186/1749-8090-8-14
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All content published in Gastro (GOJ) is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license allows anyone to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt the work — including for commercial purposes — provided appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and source.