Transhiatal robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: unclear benefits compared to traditional transhiatal esophagectomy

Abstract

Esophagectomy is a high-risk operation, regardless of technique. Minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy could reduce length of stay and pulmonary complications compared to traditional open approaches, but the benefits of minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy are unclear. We performed a retrospective review of prospectively gathered data for open transhiatal esophagectomies (THEs) and transhiatal robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomies (TH-RAMIEs) performed at a high-volume academic center between 2013 and 2017. Multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for outcomes. 465 patients met inclusion criteria (378 THE and 87 TH-RAMIE). THE patients more likely had an ASA score of 3\u2009+\u2009(89.1% vs 77.0%, p\u2009=\u20090.012), whereas TH-RAMIE patients more likely had a pathologic staging of 3+\u2009(43.7% vs. 31.2%, p\u2009=\u20090.026). TH-RAMIE patients were less likely to receive epidurals (aOR 0.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03–0.14, p\u2009<\u20090.001), but epidural use itself was not associated with differences in outcomes. TH-RAMIE patients experienced higher rates of pulmonary complications (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.82, 95% CI 1.03–3.22, p\u2009=\u20090.040), particularly pulmonary embolus (aOR 5.20, 95% CI 1.30–20.82, p\u2009=\u20090.020). There were no statistically significant differences in lymph node harvest, unexpected ICU admission, length of stay, in-hospital mortality, or 30-day readmission or mortality rates. The TH-RAMIE approach had higher rates of pulmonary complications. There were no statistically significant advantages to the TH-RAMIE approach. Further investigation is needed to understand the benefits of a minimally invasive approach to the open transhiatal esophagectomy.