Research progresses in robot-assisted Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy_Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Authors：

ZHOU Bin , ZHANG Yajie ,  LI Hecheng

Department of Thoracic Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, 200025, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

LI Hecheng, Email: lihecheng2000@hotmail.com

Keywords：

Esophageal cancer; robotic-assisted esophagectomy; Ivor-Lewis

DOI：

10.7507/1007-4848.201711087

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Surgery is the preferred treatment for early esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) can significantly reduce the incidence of postoperative complications and mortality, but due to the complex esophageal anatomy, intraoperative esophageal exposure, separation, anastomosis and lymph node dissection are difficult. The da Vinci surgical system provides a 3D vision and a more flexible as well as stable robotic arm, which is very helpful in completing fine surgical procedures. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy(RAMIE) has been carried out in a number of countries, including China. Robot-assisted Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (RAILE) is a transthoracic approach of robots developed in recent years. This paper summarizes the current researches on RAILE.

Citation： ZHOU Bin, ZHANG Yajie, LI Hecheng. Research progresses in robot-assisted Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2018, 25(7): 616-621. doi: 10.7507/1007-4848.201711087 Copy

1.	Zhang Y. Epidemiology of esophageal cancer. World J Gastroenterol, 2013, 19(34): 5598-5606.
2.	Domper Arnal MJ, Ferrández Arenas Á, Lanas Arbeloa Á. Esophageal cancer: Risk factors, screening and endoscopic treatment in Western and Eastern countries. World J Gastroenterol, 2015, 21(26): 7933-7943.
3.	Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O, et al. Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg, 2012, 256(1): 95-103.
4.	Sarkaria, Inderpal S. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: the Ivor-Lewis approach. Thorac Surg Clin, 2014, 24(2): 211-22.
5.	Taurchini M, Cuttitta A. Minimally invasive and robotic esophagectomy: state of the art. J Vis Surg, 2017, 3: 125.
6.	王文凭, 陈龙奇. 食管癌外科治疗的现状与展望. 中国胸心血管外科临床杂志, 2011, 18(1): 58-65.
7.	Salem AI, Thau MR, Strom TJ, et al. Effect of body mass index on operative outcome after robotic-assisted Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy: retrospective analysis of 129 cases at a single high-volume tertiary care center. Dis Esophagus, 2017, 30(1): 1-7.
8.	韩丁培, 项捷, 高涛涛等. 机器人辅助与传统 Ivor-Lewis 食管癌根治术近期疗效的比较. 中国微创外科杂志, 2016, 16(5): 404-407.
9.	Hodari A, Park KU, Lace B, et al. Robot-assisted minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy with real-time perfusion assessment. Ann Thorac Surg, 2015, 100(3): 947-952.
10.	de la Fuente SG, Weber J, Hoffe SE, et al. Initial experience from a large referral center with robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy for oncologic purposes. Surg Endosc, 2013, 27(9): 3339-3347.
11.	Huettner F, Dynda D, Ryan M, et al. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery; a useful tool in resident training--the Peoria experience, 2002-2009. Int J Med Robot, 2010, 6(4): 386-393.
12.	Watson TJ. Robotic esophagectomy: is it an advance and what is the future? Ann Thorac Surg, 2008, 85(2): S757-S759.
13.	Trugeda S, Fernández-Díaz MJ, Rodríguez-Sanjuán JC, et al. Initial results of robot-assisted Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy with intrathoracic hand-sewn anastomosis in the prone position. Int J Med Robot, 2014, 10(4): 397-403.
14.	Bongiolatti S, Annecchiarico M, Di Marino M, et al. Robot-sewn Ivor-Lewis anastomosis: preliminary experience and technical details. Int J Med Robot, 2016, 12(3): 421-426.
15.	Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Hawn MT. Technical aspects and early results of robotic esophagectomy with chest anastomosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2013, 145(1): 90-96.
16.	Wee JO, Bravo-Iñiguez CE, Jaklitsch MT. Early experience of robot-assisted esophagectomy with circular end-to-end stapled anastomosis. Ann Thorac Surg, 2016, 102(1): 253-259.
17.	Giugliano DN, Berger AC, Rosato EL, et al. Total minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: approaches and outcomes. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2016, 401(6): 747-756.
18.	Briez N, Piessen G, Bonnetain F, et al. Open versus laparoscopically-assisted oesophagectomy for cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled phase Ⅲ trial - the MIRO trial. BMC Cancer, 2011, 11: 310.
19.	Khan O, Nizar S, Vasilikostas G, et al. Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. J Thorac Dis, 2012, 4(5): 465-466.
20.	Kuwabara S, Katayanagi N. Comparison of three different operative methods of video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy. Esophagus, 2006, 7(1): 23–29.
21.	Abbott A, Shridhar R, Hoffe S, et al. Robotic assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in the elderly patient. J Gastrointest Oncol, 2015, 6(1): 31-38.
22.	Ruurda JP, van der Sluis PC, van der Horst S, et al. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A systematic review. J Surg Oncol, 2015, 112(3): 257-265.
23.	Blencowe NS, Strong S, McNair AG, et al. Reporting of short-term clinical outcomes after esophagectomy: a systematic review. Ann Surg, 2012, 255(4): 658-666.
24.	van der Sluis PC, Verhage RJ, van der Horst S, et al. A new clinical scoring system to define pneumonia following esophagectomy for cancer. Dig Surg, 2014, 31(2): 108-116.
25.	Hou YL, Zhao JQ, Guo W, et al. Comparison of the short-term outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer after subtotal esophagectomy via thoracoscopy in left lateral position and in prone position. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi, 2012, 15(9): 950-953.
26.	Low DE, Alderson D, Cecconello I, et al. International consensus on standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy: esophagectomy complications consensus group (ECCG). Ann Surg, 2015, 262(2): 286-294.
27.	Haverkamp L, van der Sluis PC, Verhage RJ, et al. End-to-end cervical esophagogastric anastomoses are associated with a higher number of strictures compared with end-to-side anastomoses. J Gastrointest Surg, 2013, 17(5): 872-876.
28.	Horgan S, Berger RA, Elli EF, et al. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy. Am Surg, 2003, 69(7): 624-626.
29.	Dolan JP, Kaur T, Diggs BS, et al. Impact of comorbidity on outcomes and overall survival after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc, 2013, 27(11): 4094-4103.

1. Zhang Y. Epidemiology of esophageal cancer. World J Gastroenterol, 2013, 19(34): 5598-5606.
2. Domper Arnal MJ, Ferrández Arenas Á, Lanas Arbeloa Á. Esophageal cancer: Risk factors, screening and endoscopic treatment in Western and Eastern countries. World J Gastroenterol, 2015, 21(26): 7933-7943.
3. Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O, et al. Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg, 2012, 256(1): 95-103.
4. Sarkaria, Inderpal S. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: the Ivor-Lewis approach. Thorac Surg Clin, 2014, 24(2): 211-22.
5. Taurchini M, Cuttitta A. Minimally invasive and robotic esophagectomy: state of the art. J Vis Surg, 2017, 3: 125.
6. 王文凭, 陈龙奇. 食管癌外科治疗的现状与展望. 中国胸心血管外科临床杂志, 2011, 18(1): 58-65.
7. Salem AI, Thau MR, Strom TJ, et al. Effect of body mass index on operative outcome after robotic-assisted Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy: retrospective analysis of 129 cases at a single high-volume tertiary care center. Dis Esophagus, 2017, 30(1): 1-7.
8. 韩丁培, 项捷, 高涛涛等. 机器人辅助与传统 Ivor-Lewis 食管癌根治术近期疗效的比较. 中国微创外科杂志, 2016, 16(5): 404-407.
9. Hodari A, Park KU, Lace B, et al. Robot-assisted minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy with real-time perfusion assessment. Ann Thorac Surg, 2015, 100(3): 947-952.
10. de la Fuente SG, Weber J, Hoffe SE, et al. Initial experience from a large referral center with robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy for oncologic purposes. Surg Endosc, 2013, 27(9): 3339-3347.
11. Huettner F, Dynda D, Ryan M, et al. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery; a useful tool in resident training--the Peoria experience, 2002-2009. Int J Med Robot, 2010, 6(4): 386-393.
12. Watson TJ. Robotic esophagectomy: is it an advance and what is the future? Ann Thorac Surg, 2008, 85(2): S757-S759.
13. Trugeda S, Fernández-Díaz MJ, Rodríguez-Sanjuán JC, et al. Initial results of robot-assisted Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy with intrathoracic hand-sewn anastomosis in the prone position. Int J Med Robot, 2014, 10(4): 397-403.
14. Bongiolatti S, Annecchiarico M, Di Marino M, et al. Robot-sewn Ivor-Lewis anastomosis: preliminary experience and technical details. Int J Med Robot, 2016, 12(3): 421-426.
15. Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Hawn MT. Technical aspects and early results of robotic esophagectomy with chest anastomosis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2013, 145(1): 90-96.
16. Wee JO, Bravo-Iñiguez CE, Jaklitsch MT. Early experience of robot-assisted esophagectomy with circular end-to-end stapled anastomosis. Ann Thorac Surg, 2016, 102(1): 253-259.
17. Giugliano DN, Berger AC, Rosato EL, et al. Total minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: approaches and outcomes. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2016, 401(6): 747-756.
18. Briez N, Piessen G, Bonnetain F, et al. Open versus laparoscopically-assisted oesophagectomy for cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled phase Ⅲ trial - the MIRO trial. BMC Cancer, 2011, 11: 310.
19. Khan O, Nizar S, Vasilikostas G, et al. Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. J Thorac Dis, 2012, 4(5): 465-466.
20. Kuwabara S, Katayanagi N. Comparison of three different operative methods of video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy. Esophagus, 2006, 7(1): 23–29.
21. Abbott A, Shridhar R, Hoffe S, et al. Robotic assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in the elderly patient. J Gastrointest Oncol, 2015, 6(1): 31-38.
22. Ruurda JP, van der Sluis PC, van der Horst S, et al. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A systematic review. J Surg Oncol, 2015, 112(3): 257-265.
23. Blencowe NS, Strong S, McNair AG, et al. Reporting of short-term clinical outcomes after esophagectomy: a systematic review. Ann Surg, 2012, 255(4): 658-666.
24. van der Sluis PC, Verhage RJ, van der Horst S, et al. A new clinical scoring system to define pneumonia following esophagectomy for cancer. Dig Surg, 2014, 31(2): 108-116.
25. Hou YL, Zhao JQ, Guo W, et al. Comparison of the short-term outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer after subtotal esophagectomy via thoracoscopy in left lateral position and in prone position. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi, 2012, 15(9): 950-953.
26. Low DE, Alderson D, Cecconello I, et al. International consensus on standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy: esophagectomy complications consensus group (ECCG). Ann Surg, 2015, 262(2): 286-294.
27. Haverkamp L, van der Sluis PC, Verhage RJ, et al. End-to-end cervical esophagogastric anastomoses are associated with a higher number of strictures compared with end-to-side anastomoses. J Gastrointest Surg, 2013, 17(5): 872-876.
28. Horgan S, Berger RA, Elli EF, et al. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy. Am Surg, 2003, 69(7): 624-626.
29. Dolan JP, Kaur T, Diggs BS, et al. Impact of comorbidity on outcomes and overall survival after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc, 2013, 27(11): 4094-4103.

Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Research progresses in robot-assisted Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content