Original Article
Perioperative outcomes associated with robotic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in patient’s undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy
Abstract
Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCR) for the treatment of esophageal cancer has been associated with increased perioperative morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive procedures utilizing robotic techniques have been shown to reduce perioperative complications and length of hospitalization (LOH). The purpose of this study is to compare perioperative outcomes between patients undergoing NCR and robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (RAIL) versus upfront RAIL.
Methods: A database of esophagectomy patients was queried to identify RAIL patients. Differences in perioperative outcomes were analyzed between NCR and non NCR patients.
Results: Eighty-nine patients were identified who underwent RAIL Seventy-seven patients (87%) had NCR and 22 patients did not (13%). The median age was 66 (range, 44-83). The median age of the patients treated with NCR was younger {69 [44-83] vs. 64 [46-81] years respectively, P=0.05}. The patients who underwent NCR had a higher BMI then those who went straight to esophagectomy (31 vs. 27; P=0.001). There were no conversions to open laparotomy or thoracotomy in either group. There were no statistically significant differences in the mean operative times and estimated blood loss (EBL) between both groups. Complications occurred in 17 (19.1%) patients. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of any complications between patients receiving NCR and those that did not receive NCR (P=0.11). There were no deaths in either group. The total number of days in hospital and total number of intensive care unit (ICU) days were also similar in both groups (P=0.25). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of lymph nodes harvested in the patients treated with NCR compared with those treated without NCR.
Conclusions: We have demonstrated that RAIL is a safe and feasible option for patients with esophageal cancer. The administration of NCR to RAIL did not result in an increase in perioperative morbidity and mortality. The number of lymph nodes harvested and the completeness of resection was also similar between patients who received NCR and those who did not. Longer follow-up is required in order to determine long term oncologic outcome.
Methods: A database of esophagectomy patients was queried to identify RAIL patients. Differences in perioperative outcomes were analyzed between NCR and non NCR patients.
Results: Eighty-nine patients were identified who underwent RAIL Seventy-seven patients (87%) had NCR and 22 patients did not (13%). The median age was 66 (range, 44-83). The median age of the patients treated with NCR was younger {69 [44-83] vs. 64 [46-81] years respectively, P=0.05}. The patients who underwent NCR had a higher BMI then those who went straight to esophagectomy (31 vs. 27; P=0.001). There were no conversions to open laparotomy or thoracotomy in either group. There were no statistically significant differences in the mean operative times and estimated blood loss (EBL) between both groups. Complications occurred in 17 (19.1%) patients. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of any complications between patients receiving NCR and those that did not receive NCR (P=0.11). There were no deaths in either group. The total number of days in hospital and total number of intensive care unit (ICU) days were also similar in both groups (P=0.25). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of lymph nodes harvested in the patients treated with NCR compared with those treated without NCR.
Conclusions: We have demonstrated that RAIL is a safe and feasible option for patients with esophageal cancer. The administration of NCR to RAIL did not result in an increase in perioperative morbidity and mortality. The number of lymph nodes harvested and the completeness of resection was also similar between patients who received NCR and those who did not. Longer follow-up is required in order to determine long term oncologic outcome.
