550. INTRAOPERATIVE VOLUME STATUS DOES NOT AFFECT ERAS OUTCOMES OR COMPLICATION RATES IN HYBRID ROBOTIC ASSISTED MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY

Abstract Background Intraoperative volume management in patients undergoing esophagectomy is nuanced. Data is conflicting in regards to the benefits of volume restrictive versus liberal approaches. Within a hybrid robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (hRAMIE) population undergoing oncologic resection there is a paucity of data regarding intraoperative volume status as it affects postoperative outcomes and no data regarding the impact on enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) outcomes. Methods Demographics, anthropometrics, cancer characteristics, and perioperative outcome data were gathered between January 2020 and December 2023 at a single, tertiary referral center in patients undergoing oncologic hRAMIE. Intraoperative volume status was defined, as in other reports, by identifying the median operative volume rate per hour and normalizing via the Du Bois body surface area; above or below 225 mL/hour/m2. ERAS outcomes were reported. Complications were stratified in accordance with the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group guidelines. Continuous variables were compared via Mann-Whitney U-Test; categorical via Fisher's Exact. Alpha set to 0.05. Results 96 patients (46 volume restrictive, 45 volume liberal) were identified. There were no differences in age, sex, body mass index, ASA class, Charlson Comorbidity Index, cancer histology, location, rate of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or chemoradiotherapy. ERAS outcomes analysis reveals no statistical difference in ICU length of stay, mobilization times, return of bowel function, or length of stay (Table 1). Complications were reported in 45.8% of patients and did not differ between groups (p=0.8934). Pulmonary complications were most frequent (total 21.9%; restrictive 17.4%, liberal 28.9%, p=0.1422) followed by anastomotic leak (total 12.5%; restrictive 17.4%, liberal 8.9%, p=0.3681). Conclusion The current study demonstrates no impact of volume restriction on perioperative outcomes, ERAS benchmarks, or length of stay in patients undergoing hRAMIE for esophageal cancer. Data suggests that minimally invasive approaches may be associated with less total body and pleural inflammatory mediator generation, perhaps limiting susceptibility to variation in volume status. Highly powered, multicenter retrospective minimally invasive esophagectomy and volume status investigation is warranted prior to proceeding with controlled trial.