Skip to main content
. 2022 Feb 11;74(3):1043–1054. doi: 10.1007/s13304-022-01247-z

Table 4.

Previous published experiences in robotic approach to esophageal SMTs

Author year No of patient Histology Site of the tumor Tumor size (cm) Operation Type Operative time (min) Opening mucosa Conversion LOS (days) Overall reported complication FU (months)
Elli et al. 2004 [33] 1 Leiomyoma Proximal esophagus 5 × 3 Robotic enucleation n.a 0 0 n.a 0 6
Bodner et al. 2005 [34] 2

Leiomyoma (1)

Cyst (1)

Distal esophagus 2 Robotic enucleation 121 (147–95)* 0 0 7 0 5
DeUgarte et al. 2008 [35] 1 Leiomyoma Middle esophagus 7 × 5 Robotic enucleation n.a 0 0 5 0 24
Boone J et al. 2008 [36] 1 Leiomyoma Proximal esophagus 9 × 5 Robotic reverse hybrid esophagectomy 270 - 0 11 0 36
Kerstintine et al. 2009 [37] 1 Leiomyoma Distal esophagus 4 × 2.5 Robotic enucleation 104 0 0 5 0 36
Chiu et al. 2011 [38] 1 Leiomyoma Proximal esophagus 2 Robotic enucleation n.a 0 0 6 0 6
Khalaileh et al. 2013 [39] 1 Leiomyoma Distal esophagus 4 × 3 Robotic enucleation 288 0 0 5.7 0 n.a
Compean et al. 2014 [40] 1 Leiomyoma Middle esophagus 10 × 3 Robotic enucleation n.a 0 0 4 0 n.a
Inderhees et al. 2019 [41] 1 Leiomyoma n.a 6.5 Robotic enucleation 143 0 0 5 0 n.a
Zhang et al. 2018 [42] 1 Schwannoma Middle esophagus 7 × 4 Robotic enucleation 108 0 0 5 0 50
Tribuzi et al. 2020 [43] 5

GIST (2)

Leiomyoma (2)

Cyst (1)

Lower esophagus (2)

Middle esophagus (3)

3.7 (3–6.3)* Robotic enucleation 150 (100–300)* 0 0 5 (4–9)* 0 16**

LOS Length of Stay; FU Follow-up; n.a. not available. No recurrences were detected at follow-up

*Median and range

**Mean