Robotic Versus Conventional Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

Objectives: To give a comprehensive review of the literature comparing perioperative outcomes and long-term survival with robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) versus minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer. Background: Curative minimally invasive surgical treatment for esophageal cancer includes RAMIE and conventional MIE. It remains controversial whether RAMIE is comparable to MIE. Methods: This review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021260963). A systematic search of databases was conducted. Perioperative outcomes and long-term survival were analyzed and subgroup analysis was conducted. Cumulative meta-analysis was performed to track therapeutic effectiveness. Results: Eighteen studies were included and a total of 2932 patients (92.88% squamous cell carcinoma, 29.83% neoadjuvant therapy, and 38.93% stage III-IV), 1418 underwent RAMIE and 1514 underwent MIE, were analyzed. The number of total lymph nodes (LNs) [23.35 (95% CI: 21.41–25.29) vs 21.98 (95% CI: 20.31–23.65); mean difference (MD) = 1.18; 95% CI: 0.06–2.30; P =0.04], abdominal LNs [9.05 (95% CI: 8.16–9.94) vs 7.75 (95% CI: 6.62–8.88); MD = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.19–1.89; P =0.02] and LNs along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve [1.74 (95% CI: 1.04–2.43) vs 1.34 (95% CI: 0.32–2.35); MD = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.09–0.35; P <0.001] were significantly higher in the RAMIE group. RAMIE is associated with a lower incidence of pneumonia [9.61% (95% CI: 7.38%–11.84%) vs 14.74% (95% CI: 11.62%–18.15%); odds ratio = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.58-0.93; P =0.01]. Meanwhile, other perioperative outcomes, such as operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, 30/90-day mortality, and R0 resection, showed no significant difference between the two groups. Regarding long-term survival, the 3-year overall survival was similar in the two groups, whereas patients undergoing RAMIE had a higher rate of 3-year disease-free survival compared with the MIE group [77.98% (95% CI: 72.77%–82.43%) vs 70.65% (95% CI: 63.87%–77.00%); odds ratio = 1.42; 95% CI: 1.11–1.83; P =0.006]. A cumulative meta-analysis conducted for each outcome demonstrated relatively stable effects in the two groups. Analyses of each subgroup showed similar overall outcomes. Conclusions: RAMIE is a safe and feasible alternative to MIE in the treatment of resectable esophageal cancer with comparable perioperative outcomes and seems to indicate a possible superiority in LNs dissection in the abdominal cavity, and LNs dissected along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve and 3-year disease-free survival in particular in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Further randomized studies are needed to better evaluate the long-term benefits of RAMIE compared with MIE.