Robotic-assisted Esophagectomy vs Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy (REVATE): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

62Citations
Citations of this article
63Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Radical lymph node dissection (LND) along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) is surgically demanding and can be associated with substantial postoperative morbidity. The question of whether robot-assisted esophagectomy (RE) might be superior to video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (VATE) for performing LND along the RLN in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remains open. Methods/design: We will conduct a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial (Robotic-assisted Esophagectomy vs Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy (REVATE)) enrolling patients with ESCC scheduled to undergo LND along the RLN. Patients will be randomly assigned to either RE or VATE. The primary outcome measure will be the rate of unsuccessful LND along the left RLN, which will be defined as: failure to remove lymph nodes along the left RLN (i.e., no identifiable nodes on pathology reports); or occurrence of permanent (duration > 6 months) left RLN palsy following LND. Secondary outcomes will include the number of successfully removed RLN nodes, postoperative recovery, length of hospital stay, 30-day and 90-day mortality, quality of life, and oncological outcomes. Discussion: The REVATE study provides an opportunity to explore whether RE could facilitate LND along the left RLN - a complex surgical procedure that, as of now and with the use of VATE, remains difficult to perform and associated with a significant burden of morbidity. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03713749. Registered on 22 October 2018.

References Powered by Scopus

The clavien-dindo classification of surgical complications: Five-year experience

9062Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: A multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

1422Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

International consensus on standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG)

890Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Robot-assisted Versus Conventional Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Early Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial: The RAMIE Trial

118Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma, a randomized controlled trial (ROBOT-2 trial)

67Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Worldwide Techniques and Outcomes in Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE): Results From the Multicenter International Registry

57Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chao, Y. K., Li, Z. G., Wen, Y. W., Kim, D. J., Park, S. Y., Chang, Y. L., … Van Hillegersberg, R. (2019). Robotic-assisted Esophagectomy vs Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy (REVATE): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3441-1

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 27

73%

Professor / Associate Prof. 5

14%

Researcher 3

8%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

5%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 27

73%

Nursing and Health Professions 6

16%

Social Sciences 2

5%

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Bi... 2

5%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free