Lower Rates of Unplanned Conversion to Open in Robotic Approach to Esophagectomy for Cancer

• Published in: The American surgeon 2023-06, Vol.89 (6), p.2583-2594
• Main Authors: Silva, Jack P., Putnam, Luke R., Wu, Jessica, Ding, Li, Samakar, Kamran, Abel, Stuart, Nguyen, James D., Dobrowolsky, Adrian B., Bildzukewicz, Nikolai A., Lipham, John C.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - surgery; Esophageal Neoplasms; Esophagectomy; Humans; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Retrospective Studies; Robotic Surgical Procedures
• ISSN: 0003-1348; 1555-9823
• DOI: 10.1177/00031348221104249

Background Minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy have gained popularity worldwide; however, unplanned conversion to an open approach is not uncommon. This study sought to investigate risk factors associated with converting to an open approach and to evaluate outcomes following conversion. Methods Patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for cancer were identified using the 2016-2019 Procedure Targeted NSQIP Database. Multivariable, stepwise logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate factors associated with unplanned conversion to open esophagectomy. Propensity-matched comparison of robotic (RAMIE) to traditional MIE was performed. Results A total of 1347 patients were included; 140 patients (10%) underwent conversion to open. Morbid obesity, diabetes, hypertension, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and squamous cell carcinoma were associated with a higher likelihood of conversion. A robotic approach was associated with a lower likelihood of conversion to open (OR .57, 95% CI 0.32-.99). On multivariable analysis, squamous cell carcinoma pathology was the only variable independently associated with higher odds of conversion (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.02-6.98). Propensity-matched comparison of RAMIE vs MIE showed no significant difference in conversion rate (6.5% vs 9.1%, P = .298), morbidity, or mortality. Discussion A robotic approach to esophagectomy was associated with a lower likelihood of unplanned conversion to open, and patients who were converted to open experienced worse outcomes. Future studies should aim to determine why a robotic esophagectomy approach may lead to fewer open conversions as it may be an underappreciated benefit of this newest operative approach.