Page 46 - Read Online
P. 46

Abe et al. Mini-invasive Surg 2023;7:28  https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2023.15  Page 9 of 14

               Table 2. Surgical outcomes between the groups
                                                                   RAMIE                    P value
                                               MIE      All                     Phase
                            Variables                   phase   Phase I  Phase II  III     MIE vs. RAMIE

                                                n = 208  n = 84  n = 28  n = 14  n = 42  All   Phase  Phase II &
                                                                                       phase  I     III
                Operative time, median         485      491.5   504.5   505     486.5  0.86  0.537  0.853
                [range], min                   [331-1045] [310-766]  [386-663] [401-766] [310- 656]
                Thoracic procedure time, median  232    239      268.5  248    208    0.244  <0.001 0.292
                [range], min                   [89-425]       [126-426]     [221-426]    [183-359]    [126- 379]

                Console time, median                    208.5   227.5   212    182
                [range], min                            [105- 354]  [180-337]  [136- 279] [105- 354]

                Estimated intraoperative blood loss, median   100  110  100  120  105  0.347  0.558  0.413
                [range], min                   [0-1550]  [0-550]  [20-550]  [35-300] [0-550]
                Number of harvested mediastinal lymph nodes,   24  22  21  26.5  22   0.715   0.403  0.929
                median
                [range]                        [2-58]   [10-60]  [11-40]  [14-51]  [10-60]
                R0 resection, n (%)            192      76 (90%)  26 (93%)  12 (86%) 38 (91%) 0.365  0.585  0.458
                                               (92%)

               MIE: Minimally invasive esophagectomy; RAMIE: robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy.


               Table 3. Surgical mortality, morbidity, and short-term outcomes between the groups
                                                              RAMIE                       P value
                                           MIE
                         Variables                All phase Phase I Phase II Phase III  MIE vs. RAMIE
                                           n = 208  n = 84  n = 28  n = 14  n = 42  All phase Phase I Phase II & III
                In-hospital death, n (%)   0 (0%)  0 (0%)  0 (0%)  0 (0%)  0 (0%)  NA    NA    NA
                Death within 90 days, n (%)  3 (1.4%)  0 (0%)                   0.56     NA    NA
                Duration of hospital stay, day, median   18  15  16  14.5  14.5  < 0.001  0.08  0.002
                          [range]          [9-100]  [8-78]  [8-36]  [10-78]  [10-59]
                Postoperative pneumonia, n (%)
                          CD > 2           41 (20%)  15 (18%)  8 (29%) 3 (21%)  4 (10%)  0.716  0.278  0.214
                Recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, n (%)
                          CD > 1           53 (25%) 15 (18%)  8 (29%) 1 (7%)  6 (14%)  0.163  0.726  0.04
                Anastomotic leakage, n (%)
                          CD > 2           17 (8%)  1 (1%)  0 (0%)  0 (0%)  1 (2%)  0.029  0.234  0.134
                Chylothorax, n (%)
                          CD > 2           28 (13%)  18 (21%)  9 (32%) 3 (21%)  6 (14%)  0.081  0.01  0.618
                ARDS, n (%)
                          CD > 2           9 (4%)  1 (1%)  1 (4%)  0 (0%)  0 (0%)  0.291  1    0.212
               ARDS: Acute respiratory distress syndrome; CD: clavien-Dindo classification; MIE: minimally invasive esophagectomy; NA: not available; RAMIE:
               robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy.

               by the incidence of anastomotic leakage. To compensate for the differences in baseline characteristics
               between the groups, we carried out a propensity score matching analysis in the assessment of postoperative
               outcomes. Eventually, 77 paired cases were matched from the cohort, and the two groups were comparable
               with respect to patient characteristics [Supplementary Table 1]. Table 4 shows the postoperative short-term
               outcomes after matching. Even after propensity score matching, the incidence of left RLN palsy in phases II
   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51