Cargando…

Robotic surgery for esophageal cancer: Merits and demerits

Since the introduction of robotic systems in esophageal surgery in 2000, the number of robotic esophagectomies has been gradually increasing worldwide, although robot‐assisted surgery is not yet regarded as standard treatment for esophageal cancer, because of its high cost and the paucity of high‐le...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Seto, Yasuyuki, Mori, Kazuhiko, Aikou, Susumu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5881348/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29863149
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ags3.12028
_version_ 1783311304453259264
author Seto, Yasuyuki
Mori, Kazuhiko
Aikou, Susumu
author_facet Seto, Yasuyuki
Mori, Kazuhiko
Aikou, Susumu
author_sort Seto, Yasuyuki
collection PubMed
description Since the introduction of robotic systems in esophageal surgery in 2000, the number of robotic esophagectomies has been gradually increasing worldwide, although robot‐assisted surgery is not yet regarded as standard treatment for esophageal cancer, because of its high cost and the paucity of high‐level evidence. In 2016, more than 1800 cases were operated with robot assistance. Early results with small series demonstrated feasibility and safety in both robotic transhiatal (THE) and transthoracic esophagectomies (TTE). Some studies report that the learning curve is approximately 20 cases. Following the initial series, operative results of robotic TTE have shown a tendency to improve, and oncological long‐term results are reported to be effective and acceptable: R0 resection approaches 95%, and locoregional recurrence is rare. Several recent studies have demonstrated advantages of robotic esophagectomy in lymphadenectomy compared with the thoracoscopic approach. Such technical innovations as three‐dimensional view, articulated instruments with seven degrees of movement, tremor filter etc. have the potential to outperform any conventional procedures. With the aim of preventing postoperative pulmonary complications without diminishing lymphadenectomy performance, a nontransthoracic radical esophagectomy procedure combining a video‐assisted cervical approach for the upper mediastinum and a robot‐assisted transhiatal approach for the middle and lower mediastinum, transmediastinal esophagectomy, was developed; its short‐term outcomes are promising. Thus, the merits or demerits of robotic surgery in this field remain quite difficult to assess. However, in the near future, the merits will definitely outweigh the demerits because the esophagus is an ideal organ for a robotic approach.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5881348
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58813482018-06-01 Robotic surgery for esophageal cancer: Merits and demerits Seto, Yasuyuki Mori, Kazuhiko Aikou, Susumu Ann Gastroenterol Surg Mini Review Articles Since the introduction of robotic systems in esophageal surgery in 2000, the number of robotic esophagectomies has been gradually increasing worldwide, although robot‐assisted surgery is not yet regarded as standard treatment for esophageal cancer, because of its high cost and the paucity of high‐level evidence. In 2016, more than 1800 cases were operated with robot assistance. Early results with small series demonstrated feasibility and safety in both robotic transhiatal (THE) and transthoracic esophagectomies (TTE). Some studies report that the learning curve is approximately 20 cases. Following the initial series, operative results of robotic TTE have shown a tendency to improve, and oncological long‐term results are reported to be effective and acceptable: R0 resection approaches 95%, and locoregional recurrence is rare. Several recent studies have demonstrated advantages of robotic esophagectomy in lymphadenectomy compared with the thoracoscopic approach. Such technical innovations as three‐dimensional view, articulated instruments with seven degrees of movement, tremor filter etc. have the potential to outperform any conventional procedures. With the aim of preventing postoperative pulmonary complications without diminishing lymphadenectomy performance, a nontransthoracic radical esophagectomy procedure combining a video‐assisted cervical approach for the upper mediastinum and a robot‐assisted transhiatal approach for the middle and lower mediastinum, transmediastinal esophagectomy, was developed; its short‐term outcomes are promising. Thus, the merits or demerits of robotic surgery in this field remain quite difficult to assess. However, in the near future, the merits will definitely outweigh the demerits because the esophagus is an ideal organ for a robotic approach. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-08-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5881348/ /pubmed/29863149 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ags3.12028 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of The Japanese Society of Gastroenterological Surgery This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Mini Review Articles
Seto, Yasuyuki
Mori, Kazuhiko
Aikou, Susumu
Robotic surgery for esophageal cancer: Merits and demerits
title Robotic surgery for esophageal cancer: Merits and demerits
title_full Robotic surgery for esophageal cancer: Merits and demerits
title_fullStr Robotic surgery for esophageal cancer: Merits and demerits
title_full_unstemmed Robotic surgery for esophageal cancer: Merits and demerits
title_short Robotic surgery for esophageal cancer: Merits and demerits
title_sort robotic surgery for esophageal cancer: merits and demerits
topic Mini Review Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5881348/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29863149
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ags3.12028
work_keys_str_mv AT setoyasuyuki roboticsurgeryforesophagealcancermeritsanddemerits
AT morikazuhiko roboticsurgeryforesophagealcancermeritsanddemerits
AT aikoususumu roboticsurgeryforesophagealcancermeritsanddemerits