Kamel Mohamed K, Sholi Adam N, Rahouma Mohamed, Harrison Sebron W, Lee Benjamin, Stiles Brendon M, Altorki Nasser K, Port Jeffrey L
Department of General Surgery, Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Mount Pleasant, MI, USA.
Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine - New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2020 Nov 17. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezaa336.
Oesophagectomy following induction chemoradiation therapy (CRT) is technically challenging. To date, little data exist to describe the feasibility of a robotic approach in this setting. In this study, we assessed national trends and outcomes of robotic oesophagectomy following induction CRT compared to the traditional open approach.
The National Cancer Database was queried for patients who underwent oesophagectomy following induction CRT (2010-2014). Trends of robotic utilization were assessed by a Mantel-Haenszel test of trend. Propensity matching controlled for differences in age, gender, comorbidity, stage, histology and tumour location between the robotic and open groups. Overall survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared by a log-rank test.
Oesophagectomy following induction CRT was performed in 6958 patients. Of them, 555 patients (8%) underwent robotic surgery (5% converted to an open approach). Between 2010 and 2014, utilization of a robotic approach increased from 3% to 11% (Mantel-Haenszel, P < 0.001) and the number of hospitals performing at least 1 robotic oesophagectomy increased from 23 to 57. Compared to the traditional open approach, robotic oesophagectomy was used more frequently at academic hospitals (76% vs 60%, P < 0.001), and in patients living in metropolitan areas (85% vs 77%, P < 0.001) and those living in the Midwest (41% vs 33%, P < 0.001). In the matched groups, a robotic approach was associated with shorter median hospital stay (9 vs 10 days, P = 0.004) and dissection of more lymph nodes (median, 16 vs 12, P < 0.001). However, there were no differences in rates of positive margin resection (5% for both groups, P = 0.95), 30-day readmissions (5% vs 7%, P = 0.18), 30-day mortality (2.5% vs 4%, P = 0.79), 90-day mortality (9% vs 8.5%, P = 0.89) or 5-year overall survival (42% vs 39%, P = 0.19) between patients undergoing robotic and open surgery, respectively.
Robotic oesophagectomy after induction CRT is feasible and associated with shorter hospitalization compared to an open approach, and does not compromise the adequacy of oncological resection, perioperative outcomes or long-term survival.
诱导放化疗(CRT)后进行食管切除术在技术上具有挑战性。迄今为止,几乎没有数据描述机器人手术在这种情况下的可行性。在本研究中,我们评估了诱导CRT后机器人食管切除术与传统开放手术相比的全国趋势和结果。
查询国家癌症数据库中接受诱导CRT后食管切除术的患者(2010 - 2014年)。通过Mantel - Haenszel趋势检验评估机器人手术的使用趋势。倾向匹配控制了机器人手术组和开放手术组之间在年龄、性别、合并症、分期、组织学和肿瘤位置方面的差异。通过Kaplan - Meier分析估计总生存率,并通过对数秩检验进行比较。
6958例患者接受了诱导CRT后的食管切除术。其中,555例患者(8%)接受了机器人手术(5%转为开放手术)。2010年至2014年期间,机器人手术的使用率从3%增至11%(Mantel - Haenszel检验,P < 0.001),至少进行1例机器人食管切除术的医院数量从23家增至57家。与传统开放手术相比,机器人食管切除术在学术医院使用更频繁(76%对60%,P < 0.001),在大都市地区的患者中使用更频繁(85%对77%,P < 0.001),在中西部地区的患者中使用更频繁(41%对33%,P < 0.001)。在匹配组中,机器人手术与较短的中位住院时间相关(9天对10天,P = 0.004),且清扫的淋巴结更多(中位值,16个对12个,P < 0.001)。然而,机器人手术和开放手术患者在切缘阳性切除率(两组均为5%,P = 0.95)、30天再入院率(5%对7%,P = 0.18)、30天死亡率(2.5%对4%,P = 0.79)、90天死亡率(9%对8.5%,P = 0.89)或5年总生存率(42%对39%,P = 0.19)方面没有差异。
诱导CRT后进行机器人食管切除术是可行的,与开放手术相比住院时间更短,且不影响肿瘤切除的充分性、围手术期结果或长期生存。