403. ROBOTIC-ASSISTED IVOR LEWIS ESOPHAGECTOMY COMPARED TO CONVENTIONAL MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY: RESULTS FROM SEVEN HIGH VOLUME ITALIAN CENTERS

Abstract Background Over the past decade, minimally invasive esophagectomy has gained increasing attention, supported by numerous trials and retrospective series highlighting its advantages over the traditional open approach. In addition to the conventional minimally invasive surgery (CMIE), robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has gained global popularity, due to its advantages in terms of 3D visualization and instrument stability. Methods This is a collaborative study involving seven high-volume Italian centers affiliated with the Italian Society for the Study of Esophageal Diseases (SISME). Patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between January 2015 and July 2022 were identified from seven institutional databases and divided in two groups according to the thoracic approach: CMIE versus RAMIE. Results We identified 316 patients in CMIE and 123 in RAMIE group. Operative time was significantly longer for RAMIE procedures (p<0.001). A borderline significant reduction in overall complication rate was observed (48% vs 59% in CMIE group, p=0.045), however there were no differences in severe (p=0.3) and pulmonary (p=0.13) complications rate. 90-day mortality (CMIE 3.2% vs RAMIE 0.8%, p=0.15) and readmission rate (CMIE 9.5% vs RAMIE 7.3%, p=0.47) were comparable. R0 rate was 94.9% in CMIE vs 92.7% in RAMIE (p=0.4). The most performed anastomosis was circular stapled anastomosis. Anastomotic leak rate was 13.9% for CMIE and 12.2% for RAMIE (p=0.6). Conclusion Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy has reached adequate surgical and oncological results with both conventional and robotic technique. Nowadays there is no clear superiority of one anastomotic technique.