Operative and survival outcomes in a series of 100 consecutive cases of robot-assisted transhiatal esophagectomies

12Citations
Citations of this article
73Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Robotic-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy (RATE) is a technically complex procedure with potential for improved postoperative outcomes. In this report, we describe our experience with RATE in a large case series. A retrospective review was conducted to collect clinical, outcomes, and survival data for 100 consecutive patients with esophageal cancer (n = 98) and benign (n = 2) conditions undergoing RATE between March 2007 and December 2014. Progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier curves with comparisons by log-rank tests. Median operative time and estimated blood loss were 264 minutes and 75 mL, respectively. Median intensive care unit stay was 1 day and median length of hospital stay was 8 days. Postoperative complications commonly observed were nonmalignant pleural effusion (38%) and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury (33%); 30 day mortality rate was 2%. Median number of lymph nodes removed during RATE was 17 and R0 resection was achieved in 97.8% patients. At the end of the median follow-up period of 27.7 months, median PFS was 41 months and median OS was 54 months. 1-year and 3-year PFS rates were 82% (95% CI, 75%-89%) and 53% (95% CI, 42%-62%), respectively, and OS rates were 95% (95% CI, 91%-99%) and 57% (95% CI, 46%-67%). In our experience, RATE is an effective and safe oncologic surgical procedure in a carefully selected group of patients with acceptable operative time, minimal blood loss, standard postoperative morbidity and adequate PFS and OS profiles.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Dunn, D. H., Johnson, E. M., Anderson, C. A., Krueger, J. L., DeFor, T. E., Morphew, J. A., & Banerji, N. (2017). Operative and survival outcomes in a series of 100 consecutive cases of robot-assisted transhiatal esophagectomies. Diseases of the Esophagus, 30(10), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/dox045

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free