Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 15, 2025
Author Spotlight: Cutting-Edge Robotic Heller Myotomy Protocol for Treatment of Achalasia
Published on: February 16, 2024
Risk of chyle leak after robotic versus video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy
Aaron R Dezube1, Suden Kucukak2, Luis E De León2
1Division of Thoracic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. adezube@partners.org.
Background:
We investigate the incidence and risk factors for post-operative outcomes including chyle leak following minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).
Methods:
Patients undergoing MIE from May 2016 until August 2020 were prospectively followed. Outcomes of robotic and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) esophagectomy were analyzed.
Results:
347 esophagectomies were performed: 70 cases were done robotically by 2 surgeons and 277 by VATS by 14 surgeons. Patients had similar demographics, surgical technique, length of stay (LOS), and re-operation rates. Overall complication rates between robotic and VATS MIE were statistically similar (61% vs. 50%; p = 0.082). The majority of complications for either VATS (41.5%) or robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) (51.4%) were grade II. Nineteen patients developed a chyle leak. Patients with a chyle leak were similar in age, gender, and hospital LOS (all p > 0.05), but were more likely to undergo a three-hole or robotic esophagectomy (both p < 0.05) as well as have higher rehabilitation requirements on discharge (26% vs. 10%; p = 0.05). Among the two surgeons who each performed > 20 robotic esophagectomies (n = 70), nine chyle leaks occurred. Rates varied by surgeon (7 vs. 2; p = 0.003). Lower leak rates occurred in the surgeon with more robotic esophagectomy experience (n = 47 vs. 23). Patients were similar in age, and gender (p > 0.05), but those with a chyle leak were more likely to undergo three-hole esophagectomies, prophylactic thoracic duction ligations, undergo the abdominal portion via laparotomy, and not have a prophylactic omental flap (all p < 0.05).
Conclusion:
Robotic and VATS esophagectomy have similar rates of re-operation, length of stay, discharge needs and complications. Differences in outcomes between VATS and Robotic esophagectomy appears to be related to surgeon experience with the robot but may also be associated with techniques such as anastomotic height, omental flap utilization and performance of laparoscopy.
