P1.161. Textbook Outcome Following Esophagectomy in the Era of Robotic Surgery

Clicks: 17
ID: 326165
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
Emerging

Ranked #395 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 – early outcomes and complications Background Textbook outcome (TO) is a composite quality metric reflecting optimal perioperative care following esophagectomy. With increasing adoption of minimally invasive and robotic techniques, variation in achieving TO across surgical approaches remains uncertain. This study compared TO attainment following open, hybrid, and robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy. Methods All patients undergoing esophagectomy between October 2019 and May 2025 for cancer were retrospectively analysed at a single high-volume centre. Surgical approaches were categorised as open, hybrid (robotic-assisted abdominal phase / open chest phase) or robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). Operations with other approaches like laparoscopic or thoracoscopic were excluded. TO was defined according to the recently updated international Delphi consensus on esophageal cancer surgery from 2021, incorporating tumour-negative margins, adequate lymphadenectomy (≥20 nodes), absence of intraoperative and major postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo ≥III), no anastomotic leakage, no ICU/MCU readmission, no prolonged hospital stay (≥14 days), no in-hospital mortality, and no surgical readmission. TO attainment and individual components were compared across surgical approaches using chi-square testing, with p<0.05 considered statistically significant. Results A total of 282 patients were analysed (open n=156; hybrid n=50; RAMIE n=76). Overall, TO was achieved in 51.3% open, 52.0% hybrid, and 43.4% RAMIE (p=0.52). R0 resection rates were 94.9%, 100%, and 96.1% (p=0.45), and adequate lymph node harvest (≥20 nodes) occurred in 95.5%, 96.0%, and 96.1% (p=0.37). No intraoperative complications occurred in 97.4%, 100%, and 97.4% (p=0.52). Absence of major complications (Clavien–Dindo ≥III) was 68.6%, 64.0%, and 55.3% (p=0.14). No anastomotic leak occurred in 80.1%, 94.0%, and 78.9% (p=0.06). No ICU/MCU readmission rates were 82.1%, 76.0%, and 85.5% (p=0.40), hospital stay <14 days in 66.0%, 76.0%, and 80.3% (p=0.06), no in-hospital mortality 96.8%, 98.0%, 97.4% (p=0.90), and no surgical readmission 85.3%, 84.0%, and 77.6% (p=0.34). Conclusion Approximately half of patients achieved TO following esophagectomy. Open and hybrid approaches showed comparable TO attainment, while RAMIE had lower rates, though differences were not statistically significant. These findings highlight opportunities for optimisation during robotic esophagectomy adoption and support the use of textbook outcome as a benchmark for perioperative quality assessment.
Reference Key
openalex_W7204008337 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Jakub Chmelo, Isabel Miglior, Natawadee Chantima, Joshua Brown, Maziar Navidi, Alexander Phillips
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the international society for diseases of the esophagus
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/dote/doag077.309
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doag077.309
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.