The REVATE (Robotic Oesophagectomy versus Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Oesophagectomy) trial is a multicentre, randomized controlled study comparing the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted oesophagectomy (RAO) versus video-assisted thoracoscopic oesophagectomy (VAO) for patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The primary endpoint was the success rate of left recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) lymph node dissection, defined as the removal of at least one lymph node without causing nerve damage lasting longer than 6 months. Secondary endpoints included perioperative and oncological outcomes. The study included 203 patients from three centres in Asia, with 103 in the RAO group and 100 in the VAO group. The RAO group had a significantly higher success rate for left RLN lymph node dissection (88.3% vs 69%, P = 0.001). The RAO group also had a lower incidence of short- and long-term RLN palsy at 1 week (20.4% vs 34%, P = 0.029) and 6 months (5.8% vs 20%, P = 0.003). Additionally, the RAO group had more mediastinal lymph nodes dissected (median 16 vs 14, P = 0.035) and shorter operating times. Postoperative complication rates were comparable between the two groups, and there were no in-hospital deaths. The study concluded that RAO is associated with a higher success rate in lymph node dissection along the left RLN and a significantly lower incidence of permanent nerve palsy compared to VAO. However, the trial had limitations, including the high level of experience of the surgeons and the lack of intraoperative nerve monitoring. The findings suggest that RAO may provide better lymph node removal and less nerve injury than VAO, but further research is needed to confirm these benefits in broader patient populations.The REVATE (Robotic Oesophagectomy versus Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Oesophagectomy) trial is a multicentre, randomized controlled study comparing the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted oesophagectomy (RAO) versus video-assisted thoracoscopic oesophagectomy (VAO) for patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The primary endpoint was the success rate of left recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) lymph node dissection, defined as the removal of at least one lymph node without causing nerve damage lasting longer than 6 months. Secondary endpoints included perioperative and oncological outcomes. The study included 203 patients from three centres in Asia, with 103 in the RAO group and 100 in the VAO group. The RAO group had a significantly higher success rate for left RLN lymph node dissection (88.3% vs 69%, P = 0.001). The RAO group also had a lower incidence of short- and long-term RLN palsy at 1 week (20.4% vs 34%, P = 0.029) and 6 months (5.8% vs 20%, P = 0.003). Additionally, the RAO group had more mediastinal lymph nodes dissected (median 16 vs 14, P = 0.035) and shorter operating times. Postoperative complication rates were comparable between the two groups, and there were no in-hospital deaths. The study concluded that RAO is associated with a higher success rate in lymph node dissection along the left RLN and a significantly lower incidence of permanent nerve palsy compared to VAO. However, the trial had limitations, including the high level of experience of the surgeons and the lack of intraoperative nerve monitoring. The findings suggest that RAO may provide better lymph node removal and less nerve injury than VAO, but further research is needed to confirm these benefits in broader patient populations.