OGC SO46 - Improving outcomes after oesophagectomy: The benefits of full robotic-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy (RAMIO) demonstrated in the first 100 cases, at a high-volume UK unit

Abstract Background There is a rapid movement towards adoption of robotically assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy (RAMIO) in the United Kingdom. Transition from an open or laparoscopic oesophagectomy to a RAMIO programme, which carries considerable financial and training cost, must ensure parity of oncological and perioperative outcomes. We sought to compare our centre’s results of the three standard approaches to two-phase oesophagectomy: Open/Open (Open); laparoscopic/robotic abdomen with open chest (Hybrid); and RAMIO. Method This prospective cohort study investigated the experience of five surgeons in a single high-volume UK institution. We analysed consecutive patients undergoing two-phase transthoracic oesophagectomy for oncological reasons between 2018 and 2024. The study period was divided into three cohorts: Open (2018-2020, n=61), Hybrid (2020-2023, n=82) and RAMIO (2023-2024, n=100). Patient demographics, tumour characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and oncological data were compared. Data were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-squared statistical tests. Results No significant differences were observed in patient demographics or tumour stage between the groups. Comparison of Open vs. Hybrid vs. RAMIO demonstrated a significant reduction in major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥III), 34.4% vs. 23.2% vs. 14% (p=0.0014); pulmonary complications, 36.1% vs. 25.4% vs. 13% (p=0.0004); anastomotic leak rate, 11.5% vs. 2.4% vs. 4.0%, (p=0.0370); median length of stay, 14 vs. 12 vs. 8 days (p=0.0001); and mortality, 4.9% vs. 1.2% vs. 0% (p=0.0133) all favouring the RAMIO group in sub-group analysis. Median lymph node yields were comparable across groups, 49 vs. 43 vs. 43 (p=0.0876). Conclusion This single-institution study demonstrates potential benefits of transitioning from open or hybrid to RAMIO for oesophagectomy. RAMIO was associated with significantly reduced pulmonary complications, major complications and a shorter length of hospital stay. Oncological outcomes were maintained across all 3 techniques. These findings have important patient, financial, and resource implications, and support the continued adoption of RAMIO in the UK.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
British journal of surgery
Published
2024-11-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znae271.171
Primary Topic
Esophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

OGC SO46 - Improving outcomes after oesophagectomy: The benefits of full robotic-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy (RAMIO) demonstrated in the first 100 cases, at a high-volume UK unit

Charles Rayner, Fahad Mahmood, Nima Abbassi‐Ghadi, Pritam Singh et al.
British journal of surgery
Esophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
article

OGC SO46 - Improving outcomes after oesophagectomy: The benefits of full robotic-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy (RAMIO) demonstrated in the first 100 cases, at a high-volume UK unit

Charles Rayner, Fahad Mahmood, Nima Abbassi‐Ghadi, Pritam Singh, Shaun R. Preston, Robert Walker, Anantha Madhavan, Heidi Paine, Anna McGuire, Aphiwat Luangsomboon
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background There is a rapid movement towards adoption of robotically assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy (RAMIO) in the United Kingdom. Transition from an open or laparoscopic oesophagectomy to a RAMIO programme, which carries considerable financial and training cost, must ensure parity of oncological and perioperative outcomes. We sought to compare our centre’s results of the three standard approaches to two-phase oesophagectomy: Open/Open (Open); laparoscopic/robotic abdomen with open chest (Hybrid); and RAMIO. Method This prospective cohort study investigated the experience of five surgeons in a single high-volume UK institution. We analysed consecutive patients undergoing two-phase transthoracic oesophagectomy for oncological reasons between 2018 and 2024. The study period was divided into three cohorts: Open (2018-2020, n=61), Hybrid (2020-2023, n=82) and RAMIO (2023-2024, n=100). Patient demographics, tumour characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and oncological data were compared. Data were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-squared statistical tests. Results No significant differences were observed in patient demographics or tumour stage between the groups. Comparison of Open vs. Hybrid vs. RAMIO demonstrated a significant reduction in major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥III), 34.4% vs. 23.2% vs. 14% (p=0.0014); pulmonary complications, 36.1% vs. 25.4% vs. 13% (p=0.0004); anastomotic leak rate, 11.5% vs. 2.4% vs. 4.0%, (p=0.0370); median length of stay, 14 vs. 12 vs. 8 days (p=0.0001); and mortality, 4.9% vs. 1.2% vs. 0% (p=0.0133) all favouring the RAMIO group in sub-group analysis. Median lymph node yields were comparable across groups, 49 vs. 43 vs. 43 (p=0.0876). Conclusion This single-institution study demonstrates potential benefits of transitioning from open or hybrid to RAMIO for oesophagectomy. RAMIO was associated with significantly reduced pulmonary complications, major complications and a shorter length of hospital stay. Oncological outcomes were maintained across all 3 techniques. These findings have important patient, financial, and resource implications, and support the continued adoption of RAMIO in the UK.

British journal of surgeryVol. 111(Supplement_9)
Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 62%
Esophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.