@article{oai:repository.lib.tottori-u.ac.jp:00007695,
 author = {松永, 知之 and Matsunaga, Tomoyuki and 宍戸, 裕二 and Shishido, Yuji and 齊藤, 博昭 and Saito, Hiroaki and Sakano, Yu and Makinoya, Masahiro and Miyauchi, Wataru and Shimizu, Shota and 宮谷, 幸造 and Miyatani, Kozo and 河野, 友輔 and 村上, 裕樹 and Murakami, Yuki and 花木, 武彦 and Hanaki, Takehiko and Kihara, Kyoichi and 山本, 学 and Yamamoto, Manabu and 徳安, 成郎 and Tokuyasu, Naruo and 高野, 周一 and Takano, Shuichi and 坂本, 照尚 and Sakamoto, Teruhisa and Hasegawa, Toshimichi and 藤原, 義之 and Fujiwara, Yoshiyuki and Sakano, Yu and Makinoya, Masahiro and Miyauchi, Wataru and Shimizu, Shota and Kono, Yusuke and Kihara, Kyoichi and Hasegawa, Toshimichi},
 issue = {2},
 journal = {Yonago Acta Medica, Yonago Acta Medica},
 month = {May},
 note = {02048, 04746, 03086, 03321, 02212, 01723, 02359, 00546, 01484, 04296, 03905, 03600, 03118, 00377, Background: We compared short-term clinical outcomes between robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) and video-assisted thoracic esophagectomy (VATS-E) using propensity score-matched analysis. Methods: We enrolled 114 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy at our institution from January 2013 to January 2022. Propensity score matching was performed to minimize selection bias between the RAMIE and VATS-E groups. Results: After propensity score matching, 72 patients (RAMIE group, n = 36; VATS-E group, n = 36) were selected for analysis. No significant differences in clinical variables were observed between the two groups. The RAMIE group had a significantly longer thoracic operation time (313 ± 40 vs. 295 ± 35 min, P = 0.048), a higher number of right recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph nodes (4.2 ± 2.7 vs. 2.9 ± 1.9, P = 0.039), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (23.2 ± 12.8 vs. 30.4 ± 18.6 days, P = 0.018) than the VATS-E group. The RAMIE group tended to have a lower rate of anastomotic leakage (13.9% vs. 30.6%) than the VATS-E group, although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.089). No significant differences were found in recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (11.1% vs. 13.9%, P = 0.722) or pneumonia (13.9% vs. 13.9%, P = 1.000) between the RAMIE group and the VATS-E group. Conclusion: Although RAMIE for esophageal cancer requires a longer thoracic surgery time, it might be a feasible and safe alternative to VATS-E for treating esophageal cancer. Further analysis is needed to clarify the advantages of RAMIE over VATS-E, especially in terms of long-term surgical outcomes.},
 pages = {239--245},
 title = {Impact of Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Short-Term Analysis},
 volume = {66},
 year = {2023},
 yomi = {マツナガ, トモユキ and シシド, ユウジ and サイトウ, ヒロアキ and シミズ, ショウタ and ミヤタニ, コウゾウ and コウノ, ユウスケ and ムラカミ, ユウキ and ハナキ, タケヒコ and キハラ, キョウイチ and ヤマモト, マナブ and トクヤス, ナルオ and タカノ, シュウイチ and サカモト, テルヒサ and フジワラ, ヨシユキ and シミズ, ショウタ and コウノ, ユウスケ and キハラ, キョウイチ}
}