P1.246. Evaluating Robot-Assisted Oesophagectomy Adoption: A Comparative Single-Centre Analysis of Outcomes and Costs

Clicks: 1
ID: 325650
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #21 of 453 articles by views in diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the international society for diseases of the esophagus

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 453 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Topic Esophageal Cancer: Surgical Treatment of Esophageal Cancer – technique Background Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIE) is widely used for oesophageal cancer, reducing tissue trauma while maintaining oncological outcomes. Robot-assisted MIE (RAMIE) offers enhanced precision and ergonomics but higher procedural costs. Its growing adoption warrants careful evaluation of cost-effectiveness with respect to overall hospital costs and resource utilisation. Methods The robotic programme was initially introduced in a hybrid format to mitigate learning-curve morbidity prior to full robotic adoption. Three consecutive cohorts undergoing minimally invasive oesophagectomy were compared: 50 conventional MIO, 50 hybrid procedures (robot-assisted thoracic phase), and 50 fully robotic cases (RAMIE). The primary outcome was total hospital cost, including index admission and unplanned 30-day readmissions, derived from institutional financial data. Procedural costs included theatre time, consumables, and equipment; staffing costs were equivalent across groups. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (ward and ITU), complications, and associated interventions. Continuous data were summarised as mean (SD) or median (IQR). Group comparisons used the Kruskal–Wallis test with post-hoc analysis where appropriate, and chi-square testing for categorical variables. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. Results Operative duration differed significantly between groups (Kruskal–Wallis H=32.4, p<0.001), with RAMIE demonstrating the longest median operative time (414.5 min), followed by Hybrid (375 min) and MIO (285 min); post-hoc analysis confirmed significant differences across all pairwise comparisons. Length of stay also differed (H=6.92, p=0.031), with the Hybrid cohort showing longer median LOS (15.02 days) compared with MIO (10.99 days) and RAMIE (9.39 days), whereas ITU stay remained similar (p=0.726). Comprehensive Complication Index and anastomotic leak rates, including leaks > grade 1, were comparable across groups (p=0.153 and p>0.05, respectively). Consumable costs were higher in Hybrid (£5,932.32) compared with MIO (£3,923.52) and RAMIE (£3,943.35); however, overall median hospital costs remained comparable (£39,587.72, £38,443.07, and £26,375.29; p=0.57). Overall, short-term clinical outcomes were similar across approaches despite differences in operative duration and resource utilisation. Conclusion Based on our preliminary cost analysis, overall costs were comparable across Hybrid, MIO, and RAMIO approaches despite higher consumable expenses in the Hybrid group. While operative duration and length of stay differed between techniques, ITU stay, complication burden, and anastomotic leak rates were similar. These findings suggest broadly equivalent short-term clinical outcomes across approaches, with differences mainly related to operative efficiency and resource utilization, warranting further evaluation in larger prospective studies.
Reference Key
openalex_W7203862473 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Vered Buchholz Harari, Jennifer Straatman, Ahmed Aber
Journal diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the international society for diseases of the esophagus
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/dote/doag077.394
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doag077.394
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.