REFERENCES
1. Kuppusamy MK, Low DE; International Esodata Study Group (IESG). Evaluation of international contemporary operative outcomes and management trends associated with esophagectomy: a 4-year study of >6000 patients using ECCG definitions and the online esodata database. Ann Surg 2022;275:515-25.
2. Low DE, Kuppusamy MK, Alderson D, et al. Benchmarking complications associated with esophagectomy. Ann Surg 2019;269:291-8.
3. Reavis KM. The esophageal anastomosis: how improving blood supply affects leak rate. J Gastrointest Surg 2009;13:1558-60.
4. Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit study group on behalf of the West Midlands Research Collaborative. The influence of anastomotic techniques on postoperative anastomotic complications: results of the oesophago-gastric anastomosis audit. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022;164:674-84.e5.
5. Biere SSAY, Maas KW, Cuesta MA, van der Peet DL. Cervical or thoracic anastomosis after esophagectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Surg 2011;28:29-35.
6. Li B, Yang Y, Toker A, et al. International consensus statement on robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). J Thorac Dis 2020;12:7387-401.
7. Metcalfe C, Avery K, Berrisford R, et al. Comparing open and minimally invasive surgical procedures for oesophagectomy in the treatment of cancer: the ROMIO (Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) feasibility study and pilot trial. Health Technol Assess 2016;20:1-68.
8. Mariette C, Markar SR, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS, et al. Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 2019;380:152-62.
9. Maas KW, Cuesta MA, van Berge Henegouwen MI, et al. Quality of life and late complications after minimally invasive compared to open esophagectomy: results of a randomized trial. World J Surg 2015;39:1986-93.
10. Biere SSAY, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW, et al. Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2012;379:1887-92.
11. Orringer MB, Marshall B, Chang AC, Lee J, Pickens A, Lau CL. Two thousand transhiatal esophagectomies: changing trends, lessons learned. Ann Surg 2007;246:363-74.
12. Orringer MB. Transhiatal esophagectomy without thoracotomy for carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus. Ann Surg 1984;200:282-8.
13. DePaula AL, Hashiba K, Ferreira EA, de Paula RA, Grecco E. Laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy with esophagogastroplasty. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1995;5:1-5.
14. Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, et al. Computer-enhanced robotic telesurgery. Initial experience in foregut surgery. Surg Endosc 2002;16:1790-2.
15. Horgan S, Berger RA, Elli EF, Espat NJ. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy. Am Surg 2003;69:624-6.
16. van der Sluis PC, van der Horst S, May AM, et al. Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2019;269:621-30.
17. Jin D, Yao L, Yu J, et al. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus the conventional minimally invasive one: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Int J Med Robot 2019;15:e1988.
18. Harbison GJ, Vossler JD, Yim NH, Murayama KM. Outcomes of robotic versus non-robotic minimally-invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: an American college of surgeons NSQIP database analysis. Am J Surg 2019;218:1223-8.
19. Tagkalos E, Goense L, Hoppe-Lotichius M, et al. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer: a propensity-matched analysis. Dis Esophagus 2020;33:doz060.
20. Chen H, Liu Y, Peng H, Wang R, Wang K, Li D. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Cancer Res 2021;10:4601-16.
21. Schröder W, Raptis DA, Schmidt HM, et al. Anastomotic techniques and associated morbidity in total minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy: results from the esobenchmark database. Ann Surg 2019;270:820-6.
22. Bartella I, Fransen LFC, Gutschow CA, et al. Technique of open and minimally invasive intrathoracic reconstruction following esophagectomy-an expert consensus based on a modified Delphi process. Dis Esophagus 2021;34:doaa127.
23. Plat VD, Stam WT, Schoonmade LJ, Heineman DJ, van der Peet DL, Daams F. Implementation of robot-assisted Ivor Lewis procedure: robotic hand-sewn, linear or circular technique? Am J Surg 2020;220:62-8.
24. Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O, et al. Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg 2012;256:95-103.
25. Cao C, Liu F, Yu S, Chai H. Esophagocolonic OrVil anastomosis after minimally invasive esophagectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2023;33:117-23.
26. Shishido Y, Matsunaga T, Makinoya M, et al. Circular stapling anastomosis with indocyanine green fluorescence imaging for cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after thoracoscopic esophagectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis. BMC Surg 2022;22:152.
27. Honda M, Kuriyama A, Noma H, Nunobe S, Furukawa TA. Hand-sewn versus mechanical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2013;257:238-48.
28. Halliday LJ, Doran SLF, Sgromo B, et al. Variation in esophageal anastomosis technique-the role of collaborative learning. Dis Esophagus 2020;33:doz072.
29. Okamura A, Watanabe M, Mine S, et al. Factors influencing difficulty of the thoracic procedure in minimally invasive esophagectomy. Surg Endosc 2016;30:4279-85.
30. Deng XF, Liu QX, Zhou D, Min JX, Dai JG. Hand-sewn vs linearly stapled esophagogastric anastomosis for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:4757-64.
31. Yang Y, Li B, Yi J, et al. 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 2022;275:646-53.
32. Tagkalos E, van der Sluis PC, Berlth F, et al. Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma, a randomized controlled trial (ROBOT-2 trial). BMC Cancer 2021;21:1060.
33. Chao YK, Li ZG, Wen YW, et al. Robotic-assisted Esophagectomy vs Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy (REVATE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2019;20:346.
34. Ladak F, Dang JT, Switzer N, et al. Indocyanine green for the prevention of anastomotic leaks following esophagectomy: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2019;33:384-94.
35. Casas MA, Angeramo CA, Bras Harriott C, Dreifuss NH, Schlottmann F. Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging for prevention of anastomotic leak in totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Esophagus 2022;35:doab056.
36. LeBlanc G, Takahashi C, Huston J, Shridhar R, Meredith K. The use of indocyanine green (ICYG) angiography intraoperatively to evaluate gastric conduit perfusion during esophagectomy: does it impact surgical decision-making? Surg Endosc 2023.
37. de Groot EM, Kuiper GM, van der Veen A, et al. Indocyanine green fluorescence in robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis: a prospective study. Updates Surg 2023;75:409-18.
38. Low DE, Allum W, De Manzoni G, et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in esophagectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) society recommendations. World J Surg 2019;43:299-330.
