Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Postoperative Outcomes in a Nationwide Cohort

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in clinical trials has demonstrated improved outcomes compared to open esophagectomy (OE). However, outcomes after national implementation remain unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate postoperative outcomes after RAMIE.

Patients who underwent elective esophagectomy between 2016 and 2020 were identified from the American College of Surgeons-- National Surgical Quality Improvement Program esophageal targeted participant user files and categorized by operative approach, with patients who underwent hybrid procedures excluded. Outcomes were compared between OE and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE)/RAMIE, with subset analyses by minimally invasive operative approach. Primary outcomes included pulmonary complications, anastomotic leak requiring reintervention, all-cause morbidity, and 30-d mortality.

In total 2786 patients were included, of which 58.3% underwent OE, 33.2% underwent MIE, and 8.4% underwent RAMIE. In the entire cohort, Ivor Lewis esophagectomy was the most common technique (64.6%), followed by transhiatal (22.0%), and a McKeown technique (13.4%). Comparing OE and MIE/RAMIE, pulmonary complications (21.5% versus 16.1%, P < 0.01) and all-cause morbidity (40.9% versus 32.3%, P < 0.01) were both reduced in the MIE/RAMIE group. When directly comparing MIE to RAMIE, there was no difference in the rate of pulmonary complications, anastomotic leak, all-cause morbidity, and mortality. However, RAMIE was associated with decreased all-cause morbidity compared to OE (40.9% versus 33.3%, P = 0.03).

RAMIE was associated with decreased morbidity compared to OE, with similar outcomes to MIE. The national adoption of RAMIE in this select cohort appears safe.