Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
U.S. flag
An official website of the United States government

Health Services Research & Development

Go to the ORD website
Go to the QUERI website

HSR&D Citation Abstract

Search | Search by Center | Search by Source | Keywords in Title

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted, Video-Assisted, and Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Mederos MA, de Virgilio MJ, Shenoy R, Ye L, Toste PA, Mak SS, Booth MS, Begashaw MM, Wilson M, Gunnar W, Shekelle PG, Maggard-Gibbons M, Girgis MD. Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted, Video-Assisted, and Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open. 2021 Nov 1; 4(11):e2129228.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.
   Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions


Importance: The utilization of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal cancer is increasing, despite limited data comparing RAMIE with other surgical approaches. Objective: To evaluate the literature for clinical outcomes of RAMIE compared with video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE) and open esophagectomy (OE). Data Sources: A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and Embase databases from January 1, 2013, to May 6, 2020, was performed. Study Selection: Studies that compared RAMIE with VAMIE and/or OE for cancer were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline, data were extracted by independent reviewers. A random-effects meta-analysis of 9 propensity-matched studies was performed for the RAMIE vs VAMIE comparison only. A narrative synthesis of RAMIE vs VAMIE and OE was performed. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcomes of interest were intraoperative outcomes (ie, estimated blood loss [EBL], operative time, lymph node [LN] harvest), short-term outcomes (anastomotic leak, recurrent laryngeal nerve [RLN] palsy, pulmonary and total complications, and 90-day mortality), and long-term oncologic outcomes. Results: Overall, 21 studies (2 randomized clinical trials, 11 propensity-matched studies, and 8 unmatched studies) with 9355 patients were included. A meta-analysis was performed with 9 propensity-matched studies comparing RAMIE with VAMIE. The random-effects pooled estimate found an adjusted risk difference (RD) of -0.06 (95% CI, -0.11 to -0.01) favoring fewer pulmonary complications with RAMIE. There was no evidence of differences between RAMIE and VAMIE in LN harvest (mean difference [MD], -1.1 LN; 95% CI, -2.45 to 0.25 LNs), anastomotic leak (RD, 0.0; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.03), EBL (MD, -6.25 mL; 95% CI, -18.26 to 5.77 mL), RLN palsy (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.10), total complications (RD, 0.05; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.11), or 90-day mortality (RD, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.0). There was low certainty of evidence that RAMIE was associated with a longer disease-free survival compared with VAMIE. For OE comparisons (data not pooled), RAMIE was associated with a longer operative time, decreased EBL, and less pulmonary and total complications. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, RAMIE had similar outcomes as VAMIE but was associated with fewer pulmonary complications compared with VAMIE and OE. Studies on long-term functional and cancer outcomes are needed.

Questions about the HSR&D website? Email the Web Team.

Any health information on this website is strictly for informational purposes and is not intended as medical advice. It should not be used to diagnose or treat any condition.