Abstract
Esophagectomy is the gold standard for the treatment of resectable esophageal cancer. Traditionally, it is performed through a laparotomy and a thoracotomy, and is associated with high rates of postoperative complications and mortality. The advent of robotic surgery has represented a technological evolution in the field of esophageal cancer treatment. Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been progressively widely adopted following the first reports on the safety and feasibility of this procedure in 2004. The robotic approach has better short-term postoperative outcomes than open esophagectomy, without jeopardizing oncologic radicality. The results of the comparison between RAMIE and conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy are less conclusive. This article will focus on the role of RAMIE in the current clinical scenario with particular attention to its possible benefits and perspectives.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Esophagectomy is the mainstay of esophageal cancer treatment. However, esophagectomy is a highly invasive and challenging procedure that requires multiple accesses (abdominal, thoracic, cervical), and advanced surgical technical skills. In addition, it is burdened with prolonged operative time, significant morbidity and mortality. [1]
The surgical treatment of esophageal cancer has gone through an overwhelming transformation during the last two decades, with increasing application of minimally invasive techniques. Since the first description of thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization performed by Cuschieri in 1992, multiple minimally invasive approaches to esophageal cancer have been described, with a progressive shift from different hybrid procedures with a combination of minimally invasive and open approaches to a totally Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (MIE) with a combined laparoscopic/thoracoscopic access. [2, 3] Since then, MIE has gained wide acceptance in most referral centers worldwide. [4, 5]
Randomized controlled trials, such as the TIME (Traditional Invasive versus Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy) trial and the MIRO (Oesphagectomie Pour Cancer par Voie Conventionnelle ou Coelio-Assisté) trial have demonstrated a significant reduction in postoperative complications and hospital stay, and better quality of life after both total minimally invasive and hybrid approaches compared to open procedures. [6, 7] Moreover, similar short- and long-term oncological outcomes were reported. [8]
MIE is a technically demanding procedure that requires advanced surgical skills mainly during the thoracoscopic phase, both in the mediastinal dissection and in the construction of the anastomosis. The technical challenges are mostly due to the narrow surgical space with limited compliance that does not allow the necessary mobility of the straight conventional thoracoscopic tools. This reflects into an increased risk of injury to the vital intrathoracic organs during the lymph node dissection and esophagogastric continuity restoration.
The application of robotic technologies to esophagectomy has been conceived to overcome the technical limitations of MIE. Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE) includes different surgical approaches: totally robotic (in which both the thoracoscopic and the abdominal laparoscopic phase are performed with the robotic assistance) or hybrid (a combination of robot-assisted thoracoscopy with a laparoscopic/open abdominal phase).
This review will critically analyze the outcomes of RAMIE, aiming at answering the question why we should pay more for this technology.
Methods
We conducted a narrative review performing a comprehensive search of the literature on Pubmed and Medline databases, using a combination of the following terms: esophageal cancer, esophagectomy, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy, RAMIE, laparoscopic esophagectomy, open esophagectomy, learning curve, intrathoracic anastomosis, costs. We prioritized meta-analyses, systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. Two authors (FR, EU) have selected the studies and extracted the data.
Current literature evidence
RAMIE vs. open esophagectomy
To date, there is only one Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) comparing RAMIE to open esophagectomy for cancer. The ROBOT trial was a superiority RCT designed to compare hybrid RAMIE (54 patients) and open esophagectomy (55 patients). All patients underwent a 3-stage transthoracic esophagectomy, and gastrointestinal continuity was restored with a cervical esophagogastric anastomosis. The robotic procedures were performed with a hybrid approach, consisting of a laparoscopic abdominal phase and a robot-assisted thoracoscopy. The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative surgery-related complications. RAMIE was associated with significantly lower postoperative pulmonary, cardiac, and overall morbidity (63% vs. 80% RR 0.79 95% CI 0.62–1.00; p = 0.049), reduced postoperative pain, faster recovery, and better quality of life than open esophagectomy. The analysis of the intraoperative results showed that mean operative time was significantly longer in the RAMIE arm, while mean blood losses were significantly lower. No significant differences were observed in intraoperative complications (13 vs 16%). The conversion rate to open esophagectomy was 5%. Regarding the short-term oncologic outcomes, there were no differences between the two procedures in R0 resection rates and number of lymph nodes retrieved. [9] The results of the ROBOT trial have been confirmed by subsequent comparative studies, demonstrating that RAMIE has better early postoperative results, without compromising short-term oncological outcomes. [10,11,12] Table 1 summarizes the outcomes of studies comparing RAMIE and open esophagectomy published in the literature.
RAMIE vs. MIE
Three recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing MIE and RAMIE have been published. [13,14,15]
For instance, Mederos et al. performed a meta-analysis of 9 propensity-matched studies comparing MIE and RAMIE and found fewer pulmonary complications with RAMIE but no statistically significant differences between the two procedures regarding overall complications, anastomotic leak, number of harvested lymph nodes, and mortality. [13] Similar results were reported by Angeramo et al., who performed a systemic review and meta-analysis of 60 studies comparing MIE (5275 patients) and RAMIE (974 patients) including only patients submitted to Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. In addition, the authors found that RAMIE was associated with higher rates of R0 resection (OR 2.84, 95%CI 1.53–5.26, p < 0.001) [14].
There is only one RCT: the RAMIE trial. [16] This multicenter RCT was designed to compare the outcomes of MIE (177 patients) and RAMIE (181 patients) in the treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. This study showed comparable results of the two approaches in terms of safety and feasibility, with similar rates of overall morbidity (48.6% vs. 41.8%, p = 0.19), pulmonary complications (13.8% vs. 14.7%, p = 0.82), anastomotic leakage (12.2 vs. 11.3%, p = 0.80), mortality (0.6% in both groups), and rate of R0 resections. RAMIE was associated with shorter operative time (203.8 vs. 244.9 min, P < 0.001) and a higher number of thoracic lymph nodes retrieved along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve (79.5 vs. 67.6%, p = 0.001).
The long-term results of the RAMIE trial and the results of other ongoing RCTs, the REVATE (Robotic-assisted Esophagectomy vs. Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy) and the ROBOT-2 trials are awaited to fully elucidate the role of RAMIE over conventional MIE in the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer. [17, 18]
The results of the comparative studies are summarized in Table 2 [19,20,21,22,23,24,25].
Why should we perform a RAMIE?
The current level of evidence does not demonstrate real clinically relevant advantages of RAMIE over MIE. However, possible reasons to prefer RAMIE rather than MIE may include advantages inherent to the robotic platform, the implementation of technical innovations, a shorter learning curve, and the cost reduction secondary to competitors entry in the market.
RAMIE: technical aspects
The technical characteristics of robotic technology include a magnified 3-dimensional (3-D) view of the operating field, the possibility to use articulated instruments with seven degrees of freedom, tremor filtering and motion scaling.
During RAMIE, the 3-D view and the use of articulated tools allow the surgeon to be more precise in the tissue dissection, thus leading to a more accurate lymphadenectomy and a lower risk of injury to surrounding organs. Tremor filtering and motion scaling let the surgical field to be stable over the entire procedure and, along with the 3-D view, allow to preserve small anatomical structures like the thoracic duct, the laryngeal nerve, to perform a more extended and precise lymphadenectomy and to suture in an easier and more accurate manner.
The benefits from these technical features are mostly evident during the thoracoscopic phase of RAMIE, where the limited and rigid intercostal space represents an anatomical obstacle to the movement of straight thoracoscopic tools. In addition, the enhanced freedom of movements gives the surgeon the possibility to choose among different types of anastomoses: mechanical (circular stapler vs linear stapler), hand-sewn and hybrid semi-mechanical. Even though the circular stapled anastomosis is the preferred anastomotic method during MIE, according to a recent survey of the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit, the current evidence does not support one technique of anastomosis over another. [26] The rate of anastomotic leakage following Ivor-Lewis RAMIE is highly variable in the literature, ranging from 0 to 32%. [27,28,29,30] While no significant differences have been observed in anastomotic leak rate between the different types of anastomosis, a higher rate of anastomotic stricture is associated with circular stapled than hand-sewn anastomoses. [31,32,33] The anastomotic stenosis is responsible for long-term deterioration of quality of life and impaired nutritional status of the patients. One of the reasons why a stenosis less likely occurs in a semi-mechanical anastomosis is the wider dimension of the anastomosis. The use of the robotic platform, with its increased maneuverability and flexibility, may aid the construction of a semi-mechanical anastomosis which is technically demanding to be performed under conventional thoracoscopy. Further studies are needed to compare different anastomotic techniques in light of the possible technical advantages offered by the robotic technology.
The absence of tactile feedback and the lack of artificial intelligence are two major technical disadvantages of robotic technology. While the absence of tactile feedback can be compensated with adequate training and experience of the surgeon, the lack of the artificial intelligence does not currently allow the robotic system to interfere with the surgeon’s gesture. That means that the expertise of the surgeon, more than the robotic platform itself plays a crucial role to perform a good RAMIE. [34] Developments in artificial intelligence, along with digital connectivity and imaging integration in the next future are likely to add further benefits to the robotic system.
RAMIE: learning curve
The last two decades have witnessed a significant increase in surgical innovations aiming at improving patients healthcare. The use of some of these innovations requires a learning curve; this is particularly true for MIE and RAMIE. The MIE learning curve is in large part determined by the technical difficulties related to the thoracoscopic approach. The technical complexity of reflects into a long learning curve. [35, 36] The length of the learning curve of MIE ranges between 40 and 54 cases according to the operative time. [37] On the other hand the large multicentre study by van Workum et al., including 646 patients, considered the anastomotic leak rate as the primary outcome to define the learning curve. The length of the curve was 119 cases, with a significative decrease in leak rate from 18.8% of the initial phase to 4.5% after reaching the plateau (p < 0.001). Interestingly, 10% of patients that were operated during the learning curve had an anastomotic leakage. The authors speculated that the anastomotic leak might have been prevented if those patients had surgery performed by surgeons after completion of their learning curve. [38]
Recently, Kingma et al. presented the outcomes of 70 patients who underwent RAMIE performed by an experienced surgeon during the training pathway for the transition from MIE. The CUSUM analysis showed plateaus after 22 patients for operative time and intraoperative blood loss. Moreover, they observed a significant increase in the median number of lymph nodes harvested when comparing consecutive 23–70 patients to the first 1–22 cases (32 vs 23, p = 0.001). [39]
Similarly Hernandez et al. found a cut of 20 patients after that the intraoperative time significantly decreased. There are no clear data regarding learning curve and anastomotic leakage. [40]
Considering the complexity of RAMIE several structured training programs have been proposed. Proctorship is also widely used for a safe implementation of RAMIE to shorten the learning curve and improve the surgical outcomes. [24, 25]
RAMIE: economic considerations
The main obstacle to the diffusion of the robotic technology is related to costs. The robotic system requires a significant capital investment for its purchase and has substantial costs due to system maintenance and specific robotic semi-disposable instruments. Several studies have shown that the costs of the robotic approach to several abdominal diseases may be mitigated by reduce expenses related to postoperative complications and hospital stay. [41, 42] However, in the absence of specific studies comparing costs associated with RAMIE and MIE, it is unclear if it is the case also in esophageal cancer surgery. To achieve a better cost–benefit profile, and therefore to implement the utilization of the robotic system in esophageal surgery, it is essential to reduce expenses. Possible strategies to lower costs include optimization of operative room time utilization, increased number of “lives” of the robotic surgical instruments, lower costs of energy dissection tools and staplers. The establishment of a robotic program that involves different robotic teams (general surgeons, urologists, gynecologists, thoracic surgeon) may mitigate the initial costs of the robotic technologies by increasing the patients’ volume and by optimizing the interdisciplinary work [43] The entry of new competitors in the market will translate into lower pricing of the robotic equipment and speed up developments which is supposed to change the perspectives for RAMIE.
Conclusions
MIE and RAMIE achieve similar early postoperative and oncological outcomes that are superior to those of open esophagectomy. The decision whether to perform RAMIE or MIE depends on surgeon preference and proficiency, and on economic availability of the surgical center. The augmented dexterity and accuracy offered by the robotic platform are the strengths to which a surgeon devoted to robotics hardly renounces in such challenging procedure.
In the near future, further reasons to perform RAMIE may come from the implementation of artificial intelligence, digital connectivity and imaging integration.
Data availability
All materials are available upon request.
References
Hulscher JB, Tijssen JG, Obertop H, van Lanschot JJ (2001) Transthoracic versus transhiatal resection for carcinoma of the esophagus: a meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 72:306–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-4975(00)02570-4
Cuschieri A, Shimi S, Banting S (1992) Endoscopic oesophagectomy through a right thoracoscopic approach. J R Coll Surg Edinb 37:7–11
Luketich JD, Alvelo-Rivera M, Buenaventura PO et al (2003) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcomes in 222 patients. Ann Surg 238:486–494. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000089858.40725.68
Haverkamp L, Seesing MFJ, Ruurda JP et al (2017) Worldwide trends in surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer. Dis Esophagus 30:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/dote.12480
Espinoza-Mercado F, Imai TA, Borgella JD et al (2019) Does the approach matter? Comparing survival in robotic, minimally invasive, and open esophagectomies. Ann Thorac Surg 107:378–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.08.039
Biere SSAY, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW et al (2012) Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Lond Engl 379:1887–1892. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60516-9
Mariette C, Markar SR, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS et al (2019) Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 380:152–162. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1805101
Mitzman B, Lutfi W, Wang C-H et al (2017) Minimally invasive esophagectomy provides equivalent survival to open esophagectomy: an analysis of the national cancer database. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 29:244–253. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semtcvs.2017.03.007
van der Sluis PC, van der Horst S, May AM et al (2019) Robot-assisted Minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 269:621–630. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003031
Sarkaria IS, Rizk NP, Goldman DA et al (2019) Early quality of life outcomes after robotic-assisted minimally invasive and open esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 108:920–928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.11.075
Gong L, Jiang H, Yue J et al (2020) Comparison of the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive, video-assisted minimally invasive, and open esophagectomy. J Thorac Dis 12:916–924. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2019.12.56
Pointer DT, Saeed S, Naffouje SA et al (2020) Outcomes of 350 robotic-assisted esophagectomies at a high-volume cancer center: a contemporary propensity-score matched analysis. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004317
Mederos MA, de Virgilio MJ, Shenoy R et al (2021) Comparison of clinical outcomes of robot-assisted, video-assisted, and open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open 4:e2129228. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.29228
Angeramo CA, Bras Harriott C, Casas MA, Schlottmann F (2021) Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-thoracoscopic technique. Syst rev meta-anal Surg 170:1692–1701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2021.07.013
Huang Y, Zhao Y-L, Song J-D (2021) Early outcomes with robot-assisted vs. minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of matched studies. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 25:7887–7897. https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202112_27637
Yang Y, Li B, Yi J et al (2021) Robot-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: early results of a multicenter randomized controlled trial: the ramie trial. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000005023
Chao Y-K, Li Z-G, Wen Y-W et al (2019) Robotic-assisted Esophagectomy vs Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy (REVATE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 20:346. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3441-1
Tagkalos E, van der Sluis PC, Berlth F et al (2021) Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma, a randomized controlled trial (ROBOT-2 trial). BMC Cancer 21:1060. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08780-x
He H, Wu Q, Wang Z et al (2018) Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score matched analysis. J Cardiothorac Surg 13:52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-018-0727-4
Chen J, Liu Q, Zhang X et al (2019) Comparisons of short-term outcomes between robot-assisted and thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy with extended two-field lymph node dissection for resectable thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. J Thorac Dis 11:3874–3880. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2019.09.05
Shirakawa Y, Noma K, Kunitomo T et al (2021) Initial introduction of robot-assisted, minimally invasive esophagectomy using the microanatomy-based concept in the upper mediastinum. Surg Endosc 35:6568–6576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08154-7
Duan X, Yue J, Chen C et al (2021) Lymph node dissection around left recurrent laryngeal nerve: robot-assisted vs. video-assisted McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Surg Endosc 35:6108–6116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08105-2
Tsunoda S, Obama K, Hisamori S et al (2021) Lower incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications following robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: propensity score-matched comparison to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 28:639–647. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09081-6
Oshikiri T, Goto H, Horikawa M et al (2021) Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy reduces the risk of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. Ann Surg Oncol 28:7258. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-10134-7
Ninomiya I, Okamoto K, Yamaguchi T et al (2021) Optimization of robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the lateral decubitus position. Esophagus 18:482–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10388-021-00813-5
Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Study Group on behalf of the West Midlands Research Collaborative (2019) International variation in surgical practices in units performing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: a unit survey from the oesophago-gastric anastomosis audit (OGAA). World J Surg 43:2874–2884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-05080-1
de Groot EM, Möller T, Kingma BF et al (2020) Technical details of the hand-sewn and circular-stapled anastomosis in robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doaa055
Grimminger PP, Staubitz JI, Perez D et al (2021) Multicenter Experience in Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy–a comparison of hybrid and totally robot-assisted techniques. J Gastrointest Surg 25:2463–2469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-021-05044-8
Wee JO, Bravo-Iñiguez CE, Jaklitsch MT (2016) Early experience of robot-assisted esophagectomy with circular end-to-end stapled anastomosis. Ann Thorac Surg 102:253–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.02.050
Meredith K, Huston J, Andacoglu O, Shridhar R (2018) Safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted Ivor-lewis esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doy005
Liu Q-X, Min J-X, Deng X-F, Dai J-G (2014) Is hand sewing comparable with stapling for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy? A meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 20:17218–17226. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i45.17218
Honda M, Kuriyama A, Noma H et al (2013) Hand-sewn versus mechanical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 257:238–248. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31826d4723
Kamarajah SK, Bundred JR, Singh P et al (2020) Anastomotic techniques for oesophagectomy for malignancy: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BJS Open 4:563–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50298
Gagner M (2021) Robotic surgery: is it really different from laparoscopy? a critical view from a robotic pioneer. Mini-Invasive Surg. 5:12. https://doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2021.23
White A, Kucukak S, Lee DN et al (2019) Ivor lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: an excellent operation that improves with experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 157:783–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.10.038
Claassen L, Hannink G, Luyer MDP et al (2021) Learning curves of ivor lewis totally minimally invasive esophagectomy by hospital and surgeon characteristics: a retrospective multi-national cohort study. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000004801
Claassen L, van Workum F, Rosman C (2019) Learning curve and postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy. J Thorac Dis 11:S777–S785. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2018.12.54
van Workum F, Stenstra MHBC, Berkelmans GHK et al (2019) Learning curve and associated morbidity of minimally invasive esophagectomy: a retrospective multicenter study. Ann Surg 269:88–94. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002469
Kingma BF, Hadzijusufovic E, Van der Sluis PC et al (2020) A structured training pathway to implement robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: the learning curve results from a high-volume center. Dis Esophagus. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doaa047
Hernandez JM, Dimou F, Weber J et al (2013) Defining the learning curve for robotic-assisted esophagogastrectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 17:1346–1351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-013-2225-2
Hagen ME, Pugin F, Chassot G et al (2012) Reducing cost of surgery by avoiding complications: the model of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Obes Surg 22:52–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-011-0422-1
Ghomi A, Nolan W, Sanderson DJ et al (2021) Robotic hysterectomy compared with laparoscopic hysterectomy: is it still more costly to perform? J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01273-w
Giedelman C, Moschovas MC, Bhat S et al (2021) Establishing a successful robotic surgery program and improving operating room efficiency: literature review and our experience report. J Robot Surg 15(3):435–442
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Torino within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Literature research and data analysis were performed by Fabrizio Rebecchi and Elettra Ugliono. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Fabrizio Rebecchi, Elettra Ugliono, Marco Ettore Allaix and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. Critical revision of the manuscript was performed by Mario Morino. All authors read and approved the final manuscript
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethics approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
For this type of study formal consent is not required.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Invited lecture for the 1st ESDE-IGCA EU CHAPTER joint Congress.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Rebecchi, F., Ugliono, E., Allaix, M.E. et al. Why pay more for robot in esophageal cancer surgery?. Updates Surg 75, 367–372 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-022-01351-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-022-01351-0