Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer

Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy: Comparing the combined effects of smoking burden and operative approach on outcomes in esophagectomy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the interaction between smoking status and operative approach following esophagectomy on perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

Patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2022, were identified from the STS-GTSD database and divided into 6 groups based on smoking status-never (NS), former (FS), or current (CS)-and surgical approach-minimally invasive (MIE) or open (OpenE). Primary outcomes were respiratory complications, operative mortality, major morbidity, and composite major morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

The final study population comprised 27,373 patients (28.3% NS, 68.0% FS, and 13.7% CS) from 295 hospitals. Most cases were OpenE (58.1%), but the proportion of MIE increased from 19.2% in 2009 to 56.3% in 2022. Multivariable analysis showed that (1) risk-adjusted operative mortality was decreased only in never-smokers who underwent MIE (MIE-NS: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.82), and; (2) there were no significant differences in mortality among the groups compared to the reference OpenE-NS group. Respiratory complications, major morbidity, and composite mortality and morbidity outcomes showed similar smoking and surgical approach effects. All outcomes were worse in smokers irrespective of approach, and within the same smoking status group, AORs for respiratory complications and morbidity were slightly lower in MIE versus OpenE, but these differences were nonsignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

Respiratory complications and other major morbidity outcomes following esophagectomy are substantially worsened by smoking history, particularly in current smokers. Among NS, MIE is associated with reduced operative mortality.

A systematic review of robotic breast surgery versus open surgery

Robotic-assisted breast surgery (RABS) is controversial. We systematically reviewed the evidence about RABS, comparing it to open conventional breast surgery (CBS). Following prospective registration (osf.io/97ewt), a search was performed in January 2023, without time or language restrictions, through bibliographic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, Trip database and CDSR) and grey literature. Quality was assessed in duplicate using Qualsyst criteria (score range 0.0-1.0); reviewer agreement was 98%. The 16 selected studies (total patients: 334,804) had overall high quality (mean score 0.82; range 0.68-0.91). Nine of 16 (56.3%) were cohort studies, 2/16 (12.5%) RCTs, and 5/16 (31.3%) case-control studies. Taking p < 0.05 as the significance threshold, RABS versus CBS was better in aesthetic results and patient satisfaction (10/11 studies; 90%), was surgically costly (4/4 studies; 100%), time-consuming (9/13 studies; 69%), and less painful in the first 6-24 h (2/2 studies; 100%) and without statistically significant differences in complication rates (10/12 studies; 83%) or short-term oncological outcomes (10/10 studies; 100%). Surgical time could be dramatically reduced by training surgical teams, reaching no significant differences between approaches (p = 0.120). RABS was shown to be feasible and safe. The advantages of RABS and long-term outcomes need further research.

Minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

In this study, we present our minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy technique and survival rates of this technique.

METHODS

Between September 2013 and December 2020, a total of 140 patients (56 males, 84 females; mean age: 55.5±10.3 years; range, 32 to 76 years) who underwent minimally invasive Ivor- Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer were retrospectively analyzed. Preoperative patient data, oncological and surgical outcomes, pathological results, and complications were recorded.

RESULTS

Primary diagnosis was esophageal cancer in all cases. Minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy was carried out in all of the cases included in the study. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was administrated in 97 (69.3%) of the cases. The mean duration of surgery was 261.7±30.6 (range, 195 to 330) min. The mean amount of intraoperative blood loss was 115.1±190.7 (range, 10 to 800) mL. In 60 (42.9%) of the cases, complications occurred in intraoperative and early-late postoperative periods. The anastomotic leak rate was 7.1% and the pulmonary complication rate was 22.1% in postoperative complications. The mean hospital stay length was 10.6±8.4 (range, 5-59) days and hospital mortality rate was 2.1%. The median follow-up duration was 37 (range, 2-74) months and the three- and five-year overall survival rates were 61.8% and 54.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy can be used safely with low mortality and long-time survival rates in esophageal cancer.

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Is Associated with Superior Survival Compared to Open Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has not been associated with a long-term survival advantage compared to open esophagectomy (OE). We investigated survival differences between MIE, including laparoscopic and robotic, and OE.

METHODS

Patients undergoing esophagectomy from 2010 to 2014 with T_1-4N_0-3M₀, adenocarcinoma or squamous cell histology, in middle or lower esophagus were queried from the National Cancer Database and stratified into groups based on their surgical procedure: robotic, laparoscopic, or OE. Propensity matching (1:1) was done between robotic and laparoscopic to produce an MIE group. The MIE group was matched to OE yielding a 1:1:2 matching of robotic:laparoscopic:OE. Postoperative outcomes and survival (Kaplan-Meier) were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Prior to matching, 7,163 patients met inclusion criteria and a greater portion underwent OE (67.7%) than MIE (laparoscopic 24.9% and robotic 7.4%). Matching yielded similar groups (robotic = 527, laparoscopic = 527, and OE =1054). Compared to OE, MIE patients had a significantly greater number of nodes sampled and trended toward increased R0 resections (96.1% vs 94.3%, P = .053). OE was associated with a longer median postoperative stay (10 vs 9 days, P = .001). Mortality at 30 and 90 days was similar. However, postoperative survival for MIE was significantly greater than OE (P < .001). No survival difference existed between robotic and laparoscopic (P = .723).

CONCLUSIONS

MIE is associated with increased number of nodes examined and a shorter postoperative length of stay. After propensity matching, patients undergoing MIE had better long but not short-term survival than OE. This benefit seems to be independent of the use of robotic technology.

A refined procedure for esophageal resection using a full minimally invasive approach

Objective

Newer minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy have brought substantial benefits to esophageal-cancer patients and continue to improve. We report here our experience with a streamlined procedure as part of a comprehensive perioperative-care program that provides additional advances in the continued evolution of this procedure.

Methods

All patients with primary esophageal cancer referred for resection to the Oakland Medical Center of the Kaiser-Permanente Northern California health plan who underwent this approach between January 2013 and August 2018 were included. Operative and clinical outcome variables were extracted from the electronic medical record, operating-room files, and manual chart review.

Results

142 patients underwent the new procedure and care program; 121 (85.2%) were men with mean age of 64.5 years. 127 (89.4%) were adenocarcinoma; 117 (82.4%) were clinical stage III or IVA. 115 (81.0%) required no jejunostomy. Median hospital length-of-stay was 3 days and 8 (5.6%) patients required admission to the intensive care unit. Postoperative complications occurred in 22 (15.5%) patients within 30 days of the procedure. There were no inpatient deaths; one patient (0.7%) died within 30 days following discharge and three additional deaths (2.1%) occurred through 90 days of follow-up.

Conclusions

This approach resulted in excellent clinical outcomes, including short hospital stays with limited need for the intensive care unit, few perioperative complications, and relatively few patients requiring feeding tubes on discharge. This comprehensive approach to esophagectomy is feasible and provides another clinically meaningful advance in the progress of minimally invasive esophagectomy. Further development and dissemination of this method is warranted.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13019-022-01765-2.

Advantages of McKeown minimally invasive oesophagectomy for the treatment of oesophageal cancer: propensity score matching analysis of 169 cases

BACKGROUND

Oesophagectomy, the gold standard for oesophageal cancer treatment, causes significantly high morbidity and mortality. McKeown minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIE) is preferred for treating oesophageal malignancies; however, limited studies with large sample sizes focusing on the surgical and oncological outcomes of this procedure have been reported. We aimed to compare the clinical safety and efficacy of McKeown MIE with those of open oesophagectomy (OE).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Overall, 338 oesophageal cancer patients matched by gender, age, location, size, and T and N stages (McKeown MIE: 169 vs OE: 169) were analysed. The clinicopathologic features, operational factors, postoperative complications, and prognoses were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

McKeown MIE resulted in less bleeding (200 mL vs 300 mL, p<0.01), longer operation time (335.0 h vs 240.0 h, p<0.01), and higher number of harvested lymph nodes (22 vs 9, p<0.01) than OE did. Although the rate of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury in the two groups was not significantly different, incidence of anastomotic leakage (8 vs 24, p=0.003) was significantly lower in the McKeown MIE group. In addition, patients who underwent McKeown MIE had higher 5-year overall survival than those who underwent OE (69.9% vs 40.4%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

McKeown MIE is proved to be feasible and safe to achieve better surgical and oncological outcomes for oesophageal cancer compared with OE.

Factors Affecting Blood Loss During Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy for Esophageal Carcinoma

Background

Major intraoperative hemorrhage reportedly predicts unfavorable survival outcomes following surgical resection for esophageal carcinoma (EC). However, the factors predicting the amount of blood lost during thoracoscopic esophagectomy have yet to be sufficiently studied. We sought to identify risk factors for excessive blood loss during video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for EC.

Methods

Using simple and multiple linear regression models, we performed retrospective analyses of the associations between clinicopathological/surgical factors and estimated hemorrhagic volume in 168 consecutive patients who underwent VATS-type esophagectomy for EC.

Results

The median blood loss amount was 225 mL (interquartile range, 126–380 mL). Abdominal laparotomy (p<0.001), thoracic duct resection (p=0.014), and division of the azygos arch (p<0.001) were significantly related to high volumes of blood loss. Body mass index and operative duration, as continuous variables, were also correlated positively with blood loss volume in simple linear regression. The multiple linear regression analysis identified prolonged operative duration (p<0.001), open laparotomy approach (p=0.003), azygos arch division (p=0.005), and high body mass index (p=0.014) as independent predictors of higher hemorrhage amounts during VATS esophagectomy.

Conclusion

As well as body mass index, operation-related factors such as operative duration, open laparotomy, and division of the azygos arch were independently predictive of estimated blood loss during VATS esophagectomy for EC. Laparoscopic abdominal procedures and azygos arch preservation might be minimally invasive options that would potentially reduce intraoperative hemorrhage, although oncological radicality remains an important consideration.

Does thoracoscopic esophagectomy really reduce post-operative pneumonia in all cases?

It has been said that "thoracoscopy suppresses the occurrence of pneumonia in comparison to thoracotomy", but does it reflect real clinical practice? To resolve this clinical question, we compared the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies from limited institutes (CLIs) in which a large number of high-volume centers were the main participants to those of retrospective cohort studies based on nationwide databases (CNDs) in which both high-volume centers and low-volume hospitals participated. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the short-term outcomes of thoracoscopic to open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in the three above-mentioned research formats. In total, 43 studies with 21,057 patients, which included 1 RCT with 115 patients, 38 CLIs with 6,126 patients and 4 CNDs with 14,816 patients, were selected. Pneumonia was one of the most important complications. Although significant superiority in thoracoscopic esophagectomy was observed in RCTs (p = 0.005) and CLIs (p = 0.003), no such difference was seen in findings using nationwide databases (p = 0.69). In conclusion, unlike RCTs and CLIs, CNDs did not show the superiority of thoracoscopic surgery in terms of post-operative pneumonia. RCTs and CLIs were predominantly performed by high-volume hospitals, while CNDs were often performed by low-volume hospitals. In actual clinical practice including various types of hospitals, the superiority of thoracoscopic over open esophagectomy regarding the incidence of pneumonia may, therefore, decrease.

Comparing Perioperative Mortality and Morbidity of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Nationwide Retrospective Analysis

OBJECTIVE

We compared the surgical outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) for esophageal cancer.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

MIE has become a widespread procedure. However, the definitive advantages of MIE over OE at a nationwide level have not been established.

METHODS

We analyzed patients who underwent esophagectomy for clinical stage 0 to III esophageal cancer from April 2014 to March 2017 using a Japanese inpatient database. We performed propensity score matching to compare in-hospital mortality and morbidities between MIE and OE, accounting for clustering of patients within hospitals.

RESULTS

Among 14,880 patients, propensity matching generated 4572 pairs. MIE was associated with lower incidences of in-hospital mortality (1.2% vs 1.7%, P = 0.048), surgical site infection (1.9% vs 2.6%, P = 0.04), anastomotic leakage (12.8% vs 16.8%, P < 0.001), blood transfusion (21.9% vs 33.8%, P < 0.001), reoperation (8.6% vs 9.9%, P = 0.03), tracheotomy (4.8% vs 6.3%, P = 0.002), and unplanned intubation (6.3% vs 8.4%, P < 0.001); a shorter postoperative length of stay (23 vs 26 days, P < 0.001); higher incidences of vocal cord dysfunction (9.2% vs 7.5%, P < 0.001) and prolonged intubation period after esophagectomy (23.2% vs 19.3%, P < 0.001); and a longer duration of anesthesia (408 vs 363 minutes, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

MIE had favorable outcomes in terms of in-hospital mortality, morbidities, and the postoperative hospital stay.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open McKeown for Patients with Esophageal Cancer: A Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy (McKeown-MIE) offers advantages in short-term outcomes compared with McKeown open esophagectomy (McKeown-OE); however, debate as to whether MIE is equivalent or better than OE regarding survival outcomes is ongoing.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare long-term survival between McKeown-MIE and McKeown-OE in a large cohort of esophageal cancer (EC) patients.

METHODS

We used a prospective database (independently managed by LinkDoc company) of the Thoracic Surgery Department at Henan Cancer Hospital and included patients who underwent McKeown-MIE and McKeown-OE for EC from 1 January 2015 to 6 January 2018. The perioperative data and overall survival (OS) rate in the two groups were retrospectively compared.

RESULTS

We included 502 patients who underwent McKeown-MIE (n = 306) or McKeown-OE (n = 196) for EC. The median age in the total patient population was 63 years. All baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the two groups. There was a significantly shorter mean operative time (269.76 min vs. 321.14 min, p < 0.001) in the OE group. The 30-day and in-hospital mortality rates were 0, and there was no difference in 90-day mortality (p = 0.053) between the groups. The postoperative stay was shorter in the MIE group and was 14 days and 18 days in the MIE and OE groups, respectively (p < 0.001). The OS at 60 months was 58.8% and 41.6% in the MIE and OE groups, respectively (p < 0.001) [hazard ratio 1.783, 95% confidence interval 1.347-2.359].

CONCLUSIONS

These results showed that McKeown-MIE was associated with better long-term survival than McKeown-OE for patients with resectable EC.

Minimally Invasive Mastectomy Could Achieve Non-inferior Oncological Outcome in Appropriately Selected Patients: Propensity Matched Analysis of the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive mastectomy (MIM) was emerged as an approach to decrease morbidity and increase patient satisfaction through improved cosmetic results; however, there is a paucity of data regarding the long-term oncologic outcomes of these minimally invasive approaches.

METHODS

Patients who underwent mastectomy procedures were identified in the National Cancer Database (2010-2016). Patients were categorized as MIM or open mastectomy. A 1:1 propensity match was performed to balance the bias on reconstruction, nipple sparing, lymph node procedures, and other confounding factors between the cohorts. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 328 811 patients met the criteria: 327 643 (99.6%) received open mastectomy and 1168 (.4%) received MIM. Propensity match identified 384 "pairs" of MIM and open mastectomy patients. Among them, MIM was associated with shorter length of stay (LOS) (mean 1.3 vs. 1.06 days, P = .003). No differences were observed in the rates of positive margins, unplanned readmissions, or 90-day mortality between the 2 operative approaches. Overall survival (OS) was equivalent between MIM and open mastectomy patients. Cox proportional hazard regression showed no effect of the procedure performed on OS.

DISCUSSION

MIM is associated with shorter LOS, and it is non-inferior to open mastectomy in terms of other short-term outcomes and long-term oncologic survival outcomes. These data suggest that MIM may be considered in appropriately selected breast cancer patients as an additional approach to the community.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric tube cancer: A multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Recent improvements in the prognosis of patients with esophageal cancer have led to the increased occurrence of gastric tube cancer (GTC) in the reconstructed gastric tube. However, there are few reports on the treatment results of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for GTC.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ESD for GTC after esophagectomy in a multicenter trial.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated 48 GTC lesions in 38 consecutive patients with GTC in the reconstructed gastric tube after esophagectomy who had undergone ESD between January 2005 and December 2019 at 8 institutions participating in the Okayama Gut Study group. The clinical indications of ESD for early gastric cancer were similarly applied for GTC after esophagectomy. ESD specimens were evaluated in 2-mm slices according to the Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma with curability assessments divided into curative and non-curative resection based on the Gastric Cancer Treatment Guidelines. Patient characteristics, treatment results, clinical course, and treatment outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

The median age of patients was 71.5 years (range, 57-84years), and there were 34 men and 4 women. The median observation period after ESD was 884 d (range, 8-4040 d). The median procedure time was 81 min (range, 29-334 min), the en bloc resection rate was 91.7% (44/48), and the curative resection rate was 79% (38/48). Complications during ESD were seen in 4% (2/48) of case, and those after ESD were seen in 10% (5/48) of case. The survival rate at 5 years was 59.5%. During the observation period after ESD, 10 patients died of other diseases. Although there were differences in the procedure time between institutions, a multivariate analysis showed that tumor size was the only factor associated with prolonged procedure time.

CONCLUSION

ESD for GTC after esophagectomy was shown to be safe and effective.

Impact of Early Oral Feeding on Anastomotic Leakage Rate After Esophagectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Esophageal cancer occupies a vital position in fatal cancer-related disease, with esophagectomy procedures helping to improve patient survival. The timing when oral intake should be resumed after esophagectomy and whether early oral feeding (EOF) or delayed oral feeding (DOF) should be the optimal regimen are controversial.

METHODS

Databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library) were searched. All records were screened by two authors through full-text reading. Data on the anastomotic leakage rate were extracted and synthesized in meta-analyses. Postoperative pneumonia rate and length of hospital stay were also assessed.

RESULTS

Seven studies from 49 records were included after full-text reading; 1595 patients were totally included in the analysis. No significant difference was observed between the EOF and DOF groups (odds ratio [OR] 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-4.03; p = 0.2495; I² = 70%). Higher anastomotic leakage rate was observed in EOF compared with DOF (OR 2.89; 95% CI 1.56-5.34; p = 0.0007; I² = 10%) in the open subgroup. No significant difference was observed in the MIE (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.22-1.02; p = 0.0564; I² = 0%). Patients performed similarly in pneumonia (OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.57-2.21; p = 0.745; I² = 34%). In cervical subgroup, anastomosis leakage may be less in DOF (OR 2.42 95% CI 1.26-4.64; p = 0.0651; I² = 58%), while in thoracic subgroup, there is no obvious difference (OR 0.86 95% CI 0.46-1.61; p = 0.01; I² = 84.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Anastomotic leakage related to the timing of oral feeding after open esophagectomy, which is more favorable to the DOF regimen. However, timing of oral feeding did not impair anastomotic healing in patients undergoing MIE.

Major Postoperative Complications in Esophageal Cancer After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Compared With Open Esophagectomy: An Updated Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the existing literature comparing cardiopulmonary complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with open esophagectomy (OE) and conduct a meta-analysis based on the relevant studies.

METHODS

A systematic search for articles was performed in Medline, Embase, Wiley Online Library, and the Cochrane Library. The relative risks or odds ratios (ORs) were calculated by using fixed or random-effects models. The I² and X² tests were used to test for statistical heterogeneity. We performed a metaregression for the pulmonary complications with the adenocarcinoma proportion and tumor stage. Publication bias and small-study effects were assessed using Egger's test and Begg's funnel plot.

RESULTS

A total of 30,850 participants were enrolled in the 63 studies evaluated in the meta-analysis. Arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism, pulmonary complications, gastric tip necrosis, anastomotic leakage, and vocal cord palsy were chosen as outcomes. The occurrence rate of arrhythmia was significantly lower in patients receiving MIE than in patients receiving OE (OR = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.53-0.89), with heterogeneity (I² = 30.7%, P = 0.067). The incidence of pulmonary complications was significantly lower in patients receiving MIE (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.45-0.63) but heterogeneity remained (I² = 72.1%, P = 0.000). The risk of gastric tip necrosis (OR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.07-2.05) after OE was lower than that after MIE. Anastomotic leakage, pulmonary embolism, and vocal cord palsy showed no significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

MIE has advantages over OE, especially in reducing the incidence of arrhythmia and pulmonary complications. Thus, MIE can be recommended as the preferred alternative surgery method for resectable esophageal cancer.

Postoperative short-term outcomes of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to synthesize the available evidence regarding short‐term outcomes between minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE).

Methods

Studies were identified by searching databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library up to March 2019 without language restrictions. Results of these searches were filtered according to a set of eligibility criteria and analyzed in line with PRISMA guidelines.

Results

There were 33 studies included with a total of 13 269 patients in our review, out of which 4948 cases were of MIE and 8321 cases were of OE. The pooled results suggested that MIE had a better outcome regarding all‐cause respiratory complications (RCs) (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.41–0.78, P = <0.001), in‐hospital duration (SMD = −0.51; 95% CI = −0.78−0.24; P = <0.001), and blood loss (SMD = −1.44; 95% CI = −1.95−0.93; P = <0.001). OE was associated with shorter duration of operation time, while no statistically significant differences were observed regarding other outcomes. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed for a number of different postoperative events.

Conclusions

Our study indicated that MIE had more favorable outcomes than OE from the perspective of short‐term outcomes. Further large‐scale, multicenter randomized control trials are needed to explore the long‐term survival outcomes after MIE versus OE.

Postoperative complications of minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been performed increasingly more frequently for the treatment of esophageal cancer, ever since it was first described in 1992. However, the incidence of postoperative complications of MIE has not yet been well-characterized, because (a) there are few reports of studies with a sufficient sample size, (b) a variety of minimally invasive surgical techniques are used, and (c) there are few reports in which an established system for classifying the severity of complications is examined. According to an analysis performed by the Esophageal Complications Consensus Group, the most common complications of MIE are pneumonia, arrhythmia, anastomotic leakage, conduit necrosis, chylothorax, and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. Therefore, we decided to focus on these complications. We selected 48 out of 1245 reports of studies (a) that included more than 50 patients each, (b) in which the esophagectomy technique used was clearly described, and (c) in which the complications were adequately described. The overall incidences of the postoperative complications of MIE for esophageal cancer were analyzed according to the MIE technique adopted, that is, McKeown MIE, Ivor Lewis MIE, robotic-assisted McKeown MIE, robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis MIE, or mediastinoscopic transmediastinal esophagectomy. Pneumonia, arrhythmia, anastomotic leakage, and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy occurred at an incidence rate of about 10% each; Ivor Lewis MIE was associated with a relatively low incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. It is important to recognize that the incidences of complications of MIE are influenced by the MIE technique adopted and the extent of lymph node dissection.

Cytokine Response in the Pleural Fluid and Blood in Minimally Invasive and Open Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Transthoracic esophagectomy for cancer triggers a massive inflammatory reaction. The data whether a minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) leads to less pronounced inflammatory response compared to open right-sided transthoracic esophagectomy (OE) are scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the extent of the inflammatory reaction, represented by levels of the pro-inflammatory interleukins IL-6 and IL-8, the anti-inflammatory IL-1 RA and the chemokines CINC-1 and MCP-1 in the right pleural fluid and the blood from patients undergoing standard OE or MIE.

METHODS

Pleural drainage fluid and blood was collected at five different time points during the first 72 h following surgery, and the concentrations of IL-6, IL-8, IL-1 RA, CINC-1 and MCP-1 were analyzed using enzyme-linked immune-sorbent assays in 24 patients undergoing MIE or OE.

RESULTS

The groups were matched for cancer stage and comorbidities. Pro- and anti-inflammatory mediator levels in the pleural fluid were markedly increased at the end of surgery and on postoperative days 1-3. The pleural inflammatory response of all cyto- and chemokines was lower in the MIE group, reaching significance at some time points. Cyto- and chemokine response levels measured in the blood were overall lower compared to those in the pleural fluid. The chemokines CINC-1 and MCP-1 reacted less pronounced or not at all. Preoperative pulmonary comorbidity, postoperative pulmonary morbidity and length of surgery were associated with an increased reaction in selected mediators.

CONCLUSIONS

The minimally invasive technique attenuates the inflammatory response, especially locally in the thoracic compartment. Length of procedure, preoperative pulmonary comorbidity and postoperative pulmonary complications are mirrored in an increase in individual inflammatory markers in the pleural fluid. The value of the chemokines CINC-1 and MCP-1 as markers of inflammation in the setting of esophagectomy is unclear.

The creation of an endovascular exit through the vessel wall using a minimally invasive working channel in order to reach all human organs

Since the establishment of the Seldinger technique for secure entry to the vascular system, there has been a rapid evolution in imaging and catheters that has made the arteries and veins internal routes to any place in the body for interventions. It is curious that a general exit from the vasculature in a similar manner has not been proposed earlier. Possibly, the simplest reason is that accidental perforation of the vasculature by guide wire or catheter is a feared adverse event in endovascular intervention. Most places in the body can be reached by ultrasonography or computed tomography-guided intervention. Some organs such as the central nervous system, the heart and pancreas are harder to access and, in some organs, like the kidney, repeated percutaneous punctions to cover large areas is not suitable. We present a new general purpose micro-endovascular device creating a working channel to these 'hard to reach' organs by an inverted Seldinger technique. This review details this trans-vessel wall technique, which has been studied in pancreas for transplantation of insulin-producing cells, for injection of contrast agent to the heart and to the brain, bowels and kidney in rat, rabbit, swine and macaque monkeys with up to one year of follow-up without adverse events. Furthermore, the payloads that can be given through such a system are briefly discussed. Drugs, cells, gene vectors and other therapeutic substances may be injected directly to the tissue to increase efficacy and decrease risk of off-site adverse effects.

Recent advances in thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Technical advances and developments in endoscopic equipment and thoracoscopic surgery have increased the popularity of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). However, there is currently no established scientific evidence supporting the use of MIE as an alternative to open esophagectomy (OE). To date, a number of single-institution studies and several meta-analyses have demonstrated acceptable short-term outcomes of thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, and we recently reported one of the largest propensity score-matched comparison studies between MIE and OE for esophageal cancer, based on a nationwide Japanese database. We found that, in general, MIE had a longer operative time and less blood loss than OE. Moreover, compared to OE, MIE was associated with a lower rate of pulmonary complications such as pneumonia, and both methods had similar mortality rates. Although MIE may reduce the occurrence of postoperative respiratory complications, MIE and OE seem to have comparable short-term outcomes. However, the oncological benefit to patients undergoing MIE remains to be scientifically proven, as no randomized controlled trials have been conducted to verify each method's impact on the long-term survival of cancer patients. An ongoing randomized phase III study (JCOG1409) is expected to determine the impact of each method with regard to short- and long-term outcomes.

Postoperative analgesia after combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy: a randomized comparison of continuous infusion and intermittent bolus thoracic epidural regimens

Purpose

Judicious postoperative pain management after thoracoscopic–laparoscopic esophagectomy (TLE) facilitates enhanced rehabilitation. Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) offers many benefits in esophagectomy, while several complications are associated with the delivery mode by continuous epidural infusion. This study compared the efficiency and safety of intermittent epidural bolus to continuous epidural infusion for pain management after TLE.

Patients and methods

Sixty patients, aged 18–80 years, with American Society of Anesthesiologists classes I–III and scheduled for TLE with combined general anesthesia and TEA were randomly allocated to two groups. Patients received either a continuous epidural infusion with 0.3% ropivacaine and 1.5 µg/mL fentanyl at 6 mL/h plus a patient-controlled bolus of 3 mL (continuous group) or an intermittent bolus of 6 mL of the same solution on demand with lockout time of 30 minutes (intermittent group). If the patient complained of pain and the visual analog scale score was >4, an intravenous injection of tramadol or dezocine was administered as rescue treatment. The primary outcome variable was the consumption of epidural opioids and local anesthetics for TEA.

Results

TEA for pain management following TLE by intermittent epidural bolus was associated with significantly lower consumption of fentanyl and ropivacaine and lower incidences of breakthrough pain and hypotension than continuous epidural infusion. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of pain score at rest or while coughing, patient satisfaction, or incidence of postoperative complications.

Conclusion

Compared with continuous epidural infusion, TEA by on-demand intermittent bolus greatly reduced the consumption of local anesthetics and opioids with comparable pain relief and little impairment in hemodynamics when used for pain management after TLE.

Matched-pair comparisons of minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BACKGROUND

Open esophagectomy (OE) with radical lymphadenectomy is known as one of the most invasive digestive surgeries with the high rate of complications. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has developed very rapidly and has formed several available technical approaches. This systematic review and meta-analysis is aiming at how beneficial, and to what extent MIE resection really will be.

METHODS

A systematic literature search will be performed through May 31, 2018 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar for relevant articles published in any language. Randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, and propensity score matched comparative studies will be included. If data are sufficient, subgroup analyses will be conducted in different surgical procedures of MIE.

RESULTS

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

CONCLUSION

This will be the first systematic review and meta-analysis using data of randomized controlled, prospective, and propensity score matched comparative studies to compare the outcomes between MIE and OE updating to May 31, 2018.

Multimodal analgesia using intrathecal diamorphine, and paravertebral and rectus sheath catheters are as effective as thoracic epidural for analgesia post-open two-phase esophagectomy within an enhanced recovery program

Thoracic epidural (TE) analgesia has been the standard of care for transthoracic esophagectomy patients since the 1990s. Multimodal anesthesia using intrathecal diamorphine, local anesthetic infusion catheters (LAC) into the paravertebral space and rectus sheaths and intravenous opioid postoperatively represent an alternative option for postoperative analgesia. While TE can provide excellent pain control, it may inhibit early postoperative recovery by causing hypotension and reducing mobilization. The aim of this study is to determine whether multimodal analgesia with LAC was effective with respect to adequate pain management, and compare its impact on hypotension and mobility. Patients receiving multimodal LAC analgesia were matched using propensity score matching to patients undergoing two-phase trans-thoracic esophagectomy with a TE over a two-year period (from January 2015 to December 2016). Postoperative endpoints that had been evaluated prospectively, including pain scores on movement and at rest, inotrope or vasoconstrictor requirements, and hypotension (systolic BP < 90 mmHg), were compared between cohorts. Out of 14 patients (13 male) that received LAC were matched to a cohort of 14 patients on age, sex, and comorbidity. Mean and maximum pain scores at rest and movement on postoperative days 0 to 3 were equivalent between the groups. In both cohorts, 50% of patients had a pain score of more than 7 on at least one occasion. Fewer patients in the LAC group required vasoconstrictor infusion (LAC: 36% vs. TE: 57%, P = 0.256) to maintain blood pressure or had episodes of hypotension (LAC: 43% vs. TE: 79%, P = 0.05). The LAC group was more able to ambulate on the first postoperative day (LAC: 64% vs. TE: 43%, P = 0.14) but these differences were not statistically significant. Within the epidural cohort, three patients had interruption of epidural due to dislodgement or failure of block compared to no disruption in the multimodal local anesthesia catheters group (P = 0.05). Therefore, multimodal anesthesia using spinal diamorphine with combined paravertebral and rectus sheath local anesthetic catheters appears to provide comparable pain relief post two-phase esophagectomy and may provide more reliable and safe analgesia than the current standard of care.

Comparison of perioperative and oncological outcome of thoracoscopic esophagectomy in left decubitus position and in prone position for esophageal cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to clarify the differences between thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the left decubitus position (LP) and in the prone position (PP) in terms of short-term perioperative outcomes and long-term oncological outcomes after more than 5 years of follow-up.

METHODS

Patients with esophageal cancer who underwent thoracoscopic esophagectomy and were followed up for more than 5 years were analyzed retrospectively. Of 142 patients, 72 underwent LP esophagectomy and 70 underwent PP esophagectomy. Operation time, blood loss, operative morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay, and the number of dissected lymph nodes were compared to evaluate short-term outcomes. Cancer recurrence and overall survival were compared to examine long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Patient and tumor characteristics were not different between the LP and PP groups except for the rate of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Blood loss was significantly lower in the PP group than in the LP group. Incidence of Clavien-Dindo (C.D.) grade ≥ III complications was significantly lower in the PP group than in the LP group. Pulmonary complications were also significantly lower in the PP group than in the LP group. Operation type (LP versus PP) was identified as an independent risk factor for pulmonary complications (odds ratio 0.27, p = 0.03) by multivariate analysis. Cancer recurrence rate, initial recurrence site, and overall survival rate were not different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

PP is regarded as a less invasive procedure than LP with the same oncological effect.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is a safe surgical treatment for locally advanced pathologic T3 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Background

Previous studies have shown that minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is safe and feasible. However, several of these studies had selection bias because they included more patients with early-stage cancer, and no study has compared the outcomes of locally advanced pathologic T3 (pT3) esophageal carcinoma between MIE and open surgery.

Methods

This retrospective analysis included 229 patients with stage pT3 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) who underwent esophagectomy from January 2013 to June 2015. The outcomes included operative outcomes, postoperative complications, recurrence, and mid-term survival.

Results

Sixty-six patients underwent MIE and 163 patients underwent open surgery. No significant difference was noted in blood loss or resection completeness (R0) between the two groups. The operative duration was longer in the MIE than open surgery group (266.5±52.5 vs. 218.1±47.4, P<0.01), and the number of lymph nodes dissected was higher in the MIE than open surgery group (15.2±5.3 vs. 12.9±7.3, P=0.01). There was no significant difference in the length of stay or 30-day mortality rate between the two groups, but the intensive care unit stay was shorter in the MIE group (3 vs. 4, P=0.01). No difference in complications or recurrence was noted between the two groups. The 2-year overall survival (OS) rate was 72.8% for MIE and 69.4% for open surgery, and the 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 69.4% for MIE and 57.2% for open surgery.

Conclusions

For patients with locally advanced stage pT3 ESCC, MIE has perioperative outcomes comparable to those of open surgery without compromising recurrence or survival.

Predictive factors for post-operative respiratory infections after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: outcome of randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The first and only randomized trial comparing open esophagectomy (OE) with minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) showed a significant lower incidence of post-operative respiratory infections in the patients who underwent MIE. In order to identify which specific factors are related to a better respiratory outcome in this trial an additional analysis was performed.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Eligible patients, with a resectable intrathoracic esophageal carcinoma, including the gastro-esophageal (GE) junction tumors and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ≤2, were randomized to either MIE or OE. Respiratory infection investigated was defined as a clinical manifestation of (broncho-) pneumonia confirmed by thorax X-ray and/ or Computed Tomography scan and a positive sputum culture. A logistic regression model was used.

RESULTS

From 2009 to 2011, 115 patients were randomized in 5 centers. Eight patients developed metastasis during neoadjuvant therapy or had an irresectable tumor and were therefore excluded from the analysis. Fifty-two OE patients were comparable to 55 MIE patients with regard to baseline characteristics. In-hospital mortality was not significantly different [2% (open group) and 4% (MIE group)]. A body mass index (BMI) ≥26 and OE were associated with a roughly threefold risk of developing a respiratory infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Overweight patients and OE are independently associated with a significant higher incidence of post-operative respiratory infections, i.e., pneumonia.

Investigation of operative outcomes of thoracoscopic esophagectomy after triplet chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Preoperative chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (CF) has become the standard treatment for resectable stage II/III thoracic esophageal carcinoma in Japan. Recently, preoperative triplet chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) has been reported to be effective for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) has been increasingly accepted worldwide for the treatment of esophageal cancer. We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the safety and outcomes of TE after DCF therapy for patients with advanced esophageal cancer.

METHODS

The medical records of 63 consecutive patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent thoracoscopic surgery after chemotherapy were reviewed. Thirty-four patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with CF, and 29 received DCF as first-line chemotherapy.

RESULTS

The clinical T stage was significantly higher in the DCF group than in the CF group (p < 0.0001), including 17 patients with T4. Lymph node metastasis was more frequent in the DCF group (p = 0.0005), and the clinical stage of the tumor was significantly higher in the DCF group than in the CF group (p = 0.0001). No significant difference existed between the two groups in operation time for the thoracic procedure (DCF 277.2 min vs. CF 302 min). Blood loss during the thoracic procedure was less in the DCF group than in the CF group (DCF 46.9 mL vs. CF 88.8 mL; p = 0.0056). No significant differences existed between the two groups in postoperative morbidity (DCF 34.5% vs. CF 47%) or mortality (DCF 0% vs. CF 2.9%) rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that TE after DCF therapy for advanced esophageal cancer is as safe as TE after CF therapy.

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

Background

Open esophagectomy (OE) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) reduces complications in resectable esophageal cancer. The aim of this study is to explore the superiority of MIO in reducing complications and in-hospital mortality than OE.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Wanfang, and Wiley Online Library were thoroughly searched. Odds ratio (OR)/weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess the strength of association.

Results

Fifty-seven studies containing 15,790 cases of resectable esophageal cancer were included. MIO had less intraoperative blood loss, short hospital stay, and high operative time (P < 0.05) than OE. MIO also had reduced incidence of total complications; (OR = 0.700, 95% CI = 0.626 ~ 0.781, P_V < 0.05), pulmonary complications (OR = 0.527, 95% CI = 0431 ~ 0.645, P_V < 0.05), cardiovascular complications (OR = 0.770, 95% CI = 0.681 ~ 0.872, P_V < 0.05), and surgical technology related (STR) complications (OR = 0.639, 95% CI = 0.522 ~ 0.781, P_V < 0.05), as well as lower in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.668, 95% CI = 0.539 ~ 0.827, P_V < 0.05). However, the number of harvested lymph nodes, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, gastrointestinal complications, anastomotic leak (AL), and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (RLNP) had no significant difference.

Conclusions

MIO is superior to OE in terms of perioperative complications and in-hospital mortality.

Survival outcomes of 220 consecutive patients with three-staged thoracoscopic esophagectomy

Patients with thoracic esophageal cancer are often treated by minimally invasive esophagectomy. However, the long-term survival benefits of minimally invasive esophagectomy remain unclear. Two approaches are available for thoracoscopic surgery: one with the patient in the left lateral decubitus position (LLDP), and the other with the patient in the prone position (PP). We investigated the survival benefit of thoracoscopic esophagectomy according to the tumor stage and patient position during the thoracoscopic procedure. We reviewed the records of 220 consecutive patients with esophageal cancer treated from 1998 to 2012. In total, 146 and 74 patients were treated with thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the LLDP and PP, respectively. No patients were initially proposed to be candidates for esophagectomy by thoracotomy during the study period. Data collection was performed with a focus on survival and recurrent disease. Among all the 220 patients, the overall 5-year survival rates were 83.7%, 74.1%, 45.5%, 78.6%, 44.2%, 29.4% and 24.3% in the patients with pStage IA, IB, IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB and IIIC disease, respectively. Despite the greater number of dissected mediastinal lymph nodes in the PP procedure, there were no significant differences in the survival curves between the LLDP and PP procedures. The long-term results of thoracoscopic esophagectomy are comparable and acceptable. The PP procedure was not confirmed to offer a superior survival benefit to the LLDP procedure in this retrospective study.

Minimally Invasive Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy (MIILE): A Single-Center Experience

With the development of minimally invasive procedures, minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (MIILE) has been proposed as a safe and feasible surgical choice for the treatment of esophageal cancer. This retrospective study evaluated MIILE results from a single medical center. A total of 619 patients were selected as candidates for Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy from December 2011 to May 2015, in which 334 patients accepted MIILE and 285 patients accepted open Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (OILE). General characteristics, surgical data, complication rates, and survival were analyzed. Differences in general characteristics between groups were not significant. Intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.01), postoperative volume of drainage for the first day (P < 0.01), time to drain removal (P ≤ 0.01), wound infection rate (P = 0.04), and length of hospital stay (P < 0.01) were significantly reduced in the MIILE group. There were no statistically significant differences in general morbidity (P = 0.56), the total swept lymph nodes (P = 0.47), mortality (P = 0.34), and survival rate at 3 years (P = 0.63). MIILE is a safe and feasible method for the treatment of esophageal cancer, in which good outcomes were reported and some advantages were found over the open procedure.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy performed with the patient in a prone position: a systematic review

PURPOSE

We reviewed the surgical results of minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, performed with the patient in a prone position (MIE-PP), to assess its benefits.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed, and articles that fully described the surgical results of MIE-PP were selected. Parameters such as operative time, blood loss, and postoperative outcomes were compared with those obtained for open transthoracic esophagectomy (OE) and minimally invasive esophagectomy in a lateral decubitus position (MIE-LP).

RESULTS

The conversion rate from MIE-PP to open surgery was very low. MIE-PP was associated with longer operative time and lower blood loss than OE. Although studies from a single institution did not show an apparent difference in morbidity or mortality among the three operative groups, results of a multicenter randomized controlled trial showed a reduction in pulmonary infection and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy in MIE-PP, compared with OE. The benefits of MIE-PP vs. those of MIE-LP remain controversial.

CONCLUSION

Theoretically, the operative results of MIE-PP might be better than those of MIE-LP for patients with esophageal cancer; however, studies have not yet verified this. Further clinical studies are required to establish whether the advantages of MIE-PP can be translated into clinical outcome.

Quality of Life and Late Complications After Minimally Invasive Compared to Open Esophagectomy: Results of a Randomized Trial

Background

The minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is widely being implemented for esophageal cancer in order to reduce morbidity and improve quality of life. Non-randomized studies investigating the mid-term quality of life after MIE show conflicting results at 1-year follow-up. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine whether MIE has a continuing better mid-term 1-year quality of life than open esophagectomy (OE) indicating both a faster recovery and less procedure-related symptoms.

Methods

A one-year follow-up analysis of the quality of life was conducted for patients participating in the randomized trial in which MIE was compared with OE. Late complications as symptomatic stenosis of anastomosis are also reported.

Results

Quality of life at 1 year was better in the MIE group than in the OE group for the physical component summary SF36 [50 (6; 48–53) versus 45 (9; 42–48) p .003]; global health C30 [79 (10; 76–83) versus 67 (21; 60–75) p .004]; and pain OES18 module [6 (9; 2–8) versus 16 (16; 10–22) p .001], respectively. Twenty six patients (44 %) in the MIE and 22 patients (39 %) in the OE group were diagnosed and treated for symptomatic stenosis of the anastomosis.

Conclusions

This first randomized trial shows that MIE is associated with a better mid-term one-year quality of life compared to OE.

Does minimally invasive oesophagectomy provide a benefit in hospital length of stay when compared with open oesophagectomy?

A best evidence topic in thoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: 'in patients undergoing oesophagectomy, does a minimally invasive approach convey a benefit in hospital length of stay (LOS), when compared to an open approach?' A total of 647 papers were identified, using an a priori defined search strategy; 24 papers represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date, country of publication, patient group, study type, relevant outcomes and key results are tabulated. Of the studies identified, data from two randomized controlled trials were available. The first randomized study compared the use of open thoracotomy and laparotomy versus thoracoscopy and laparoscopy. Those undergoing minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) left hospital on average 3 days earlier than those treated with the open oesophagectomy (OO) technique (P = 0.044). The other randomized trial, which compared thoracotomy with thoracoscopy and laparoscopy, demonstrated a reduction of 1.8 days in the LOS when employing the MIO technique (P < 0.001). With the addition of the remaining 22 non-randomized studies, comprising 3 prospective and 19 retrospective cohort studies, which are heterogeneous with regard to their design, study populations and outcomes; data are available representing 3173 MIO and 25 691 OO procedures. In total, 13 studies (including the randomized trials) demonstrate a significant reduction in hospital LOS associated with MIO; 10 suggest no significant difference between techniques; and only 1 suggests a significantly greater length of stay associated with MIO. The only two randomized trials comparing MIO and OO demonstrated a reduction in length of stay in the MIO group, without compromising survival or increasing complication rates. All bar one of the non-randomized studies demonstrated either a significant reduction in length of stay with MIO or no difference. The benefit in reduced length of stay was not at the cost of worsened survival or increased complications, and conversion rates in all studies were low.

Transthoracic Extracorporeal Gastric Conduit Preparation for Minimally Invasive Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy

OBJECTIVE

During totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), the gastric conduit is typically constructed via laparoscopy. Trauma from laparoscopic instruments, inability to palpate the gastroepiploic arcade, and challenges in optimal positioning of the stomach for intra-abdominal stapling have led to the widespread use of laparotomy as part of hybrid MIE procedures. Our objective was to evaluate the safety of transthoracic extracorporeal gastric conduit preparation. We hypothesize that this alternative technique is equivalent in safety to the laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

This is a retrospective comparison of laparoscopic and transthoracic extracorporeal gastric conduit preparation with regard to anastomotic and respiratory outcomes.

RESULTS

During a 3-year period, 30 patients underwent MIE with a right intrathoracic anastomosis (extracorporeal conduit, 15; laparoscopic conduit, 15). Mean age (58.6 vs 67 years, P = 0.59), tumor location (gastroesophageal junction vs middle and lower esophageal, P = 0.27), and histology (adenocarcinoma vs other 26.7%, P = 0.68) were similar between groups. Anastomotic technique and operating surgeon were the same for all patients. Patients in the laparoscopic gastric conduit group were more likely to have undergone induction chemoradiotherapy (40% vs 80%, P = 0.030). There was no significant difference between groups with respect to anastomotic complications, including anastomotic leak and anastomotic stricture (20% vs 13.3%, P = 0.70). Transthoracic gastric conduit preparation was not associated with increased respiratory complications (8% vs 12%, P = 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Transthoracic gastric conduit preparation is a simple, minimally invasive alternative laparotomy for gastric conduit preparation during MIE. No additional incision is required. The technique may help surgeons overcome shortcomings of the laparoscopic approach without impacting perioperative risk.

Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Compared with open esophagectomy (OE), minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) proves to have clear benefits in reducing the risk of pulmonary complications for patients with resectable esophageal cancer. The objectives of our study were to explore the superiority of MIE in reducing the occurrence of anastomotic leakages (ALs) when compared to OE.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the superiority of MIE on the occurrence of ALs over OE, by searching many sources (through December, 2014) such as Medline, Embase, Wiley Online Library, and Cochrane Library. Fixed-effects model was used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) to quantify associations between OE and MIE groups. Cochran’s Q and I² statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity among studies.

Results

Among a total of 43 studies involving 5537 patients included in the meta-analysis, 2527 (45.6 %) cases underwent MIE and 3010 (54.4 %) cases underwent OE. Compared to patients undergoing OE, patients undergoing MIE did not have statistical significance in reduced occurrence of ALs (OR = 0.97, 95 % CI = 0.80–1.17). Insignificant reduced occurrence of ALs was not associated with anastomotic location (OR = 0.90, 95 % CI = 0.71–1.13) or anastomotic procedure (OR = 1.02, 95 % CI = 0.79–1.30).

Conclusions

More proofs are needed to clarify the strengths or weaknesses of MIE in preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer. A largely randomized, controlled trial should be undertaken to resolve this contentious issue urgently.

Superiority of Minimally Invasive Oesophagectomy in Reducing In-Hospital Mortality of Patients with Resectable Oesophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Compared with open oesophagectomy (OE), minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) proves to have benefits in reducing the risk of pulmonary complications for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. However, it is unknown whether MIO has superiority in reducing the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM).

Objective

The objective of this meta-analysis was to explore the effect of MIO vs. OE on the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM).

Data Sources

Sources such as Medline (through December 31, 2014), Embase (through December 31, 2014), Wiley Online Library (through December 31, 2014), and the Cochrane Library (through December 31, 2014) were searched.

Study Selection

Data of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials related to MIO versus OE were included.

Interventions

Eligible studies were those that reported patients who underwent MIO procedure. The control group included patients undergoing conventional OE.

Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods

Fixed or random -effects models were used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) or relative risks (RRs) for quantification of associations. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated by using Cochran’s Q and I² statistics.

Results

A total of 48 studies involving 14,311 cases of resectable oesophageal cancer were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to patients undergoing OE, patients undergoing MIO had statistically reduced occurrence of IHM (OR=0.69, 95%CI =0.55 -0.86). Patients undergoing MIO also had significantly reduced incidence of pulmonary complications (PCs) (RR=0.73, 95%CI = 0.63-0.86), pulmonary embolism (PE) (OR=0.71, 95%CI= 0.51-0.99) and arrhythmia (OR=0.79, 95%CI = 0.68-0.92). Non-significant reductions were observed among the included studies in the occurrence of anastomotic leak (AL) (OR=0.93, 95%CI =0.78-1.11), or Gastric Tip Necrosis (GTN) (OR=0.89, 95%CI =0.54-1.49).

Limitation

Most of the included studies were non-randomized case-control studies, with a diversity of study designs, demographics of participants and surgical intervention.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) has superiority over open oesophagectomy (OE) in terms of the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM) and should be the first-choice surgical procedure in esophageal surgery.

Laparoscopic assisted versus open gastric pull-up following thoracoscopic esophagectomy: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy (TLE) is a type of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer which consists of thoracoscopic resection and laparoscopic reconstruction. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the technical and oncological feasibility of alimentary tract reconstruction with laparoscopically assisted gastric pull-up (LAG) following thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position (TSEP) in comparison with reconstruction with open laparotomy gastric pull-up (OLG) following TSEP, to establish TLE with extended lymph node dissection as a standard operation for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients with esophageal cancer underwent TSEP with 3-field lymphadenectomy from 2008 through 2010: for reconstruction after TSEP, 31 patients underwent LAG, and 33 patients underwent OLG. We retrospectively evaluated the technical and oncological feasibility of TLE with 3-field lymphadenectomy and compared surgical outcomes after reconstruction with OLG and that with LAG.

RESULTS

TLE with 3-field lymphadenectomy was successfully completed in 30 of 31 (97%) patients, and no surgery-related postoperative deaths occurred. No significant difference was found between LAG and OLG in the mean number of dissected abdominal lymph nodes, amount of blood loss, incidence of postoperative complications, mean postoperative hospital stay, restoration rate of respiratory function, or rate of complete resection or locoregional control, but the mean duration of abdominal procedures was significantly longer with LAG than with OLG.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the quality and safety of surgery and the oncological effectiveness of LAG for esophageal cancer. TLE consisting of LAG following TSEP with extended lymph-node dissection is a feasible surgical technique for thoracic esophageal carcinoma.

Outcomes, quality of life, and survival after esophagectomy for squamous cell carcinoma: A propensity score-matched comparison of operative approaches

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) theoretically offers advantages compared with open esophagectomy (OE). However, the long-term outcomes have not been well studied, especially for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. We retrospectively compared postoperative outcomes, quality of life (QOL), and survival in a matched population of patients undergoing MIE, with a control (OE) group.

METHODS

From May 2004 to August 2013, MIE was performed for a group of 735 patients, which was compared with a group of 652 cases of OE. Eventually, 444 paired cases, matched using propensity-score matching, were selected for further statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with the OE group, the MIE group had shorter operation duration (191 ± 47 minutes vs 211 ± 44 minutes, P < .001); less blood loss (135 ± 74 ml vs 163 ± 84 ml, P < .001); similar lymph node harvest (24.1 ± 6.2 vs 24.3 ± 6.0, P = .607); shorter postoperative hospital stay (11 days [range: 7-90 days] vs 12 days [range: 8-112 days], P < .001); fewer major complications (30.4% vs 36.9%, P = .039); a lower readmission rate to the intensive-care unit (5.6% vs 9.7%, P = .023); and similar perioperative mortality (1.1% vs 2.0%, P = .281). At a median follow-up of 27 months, the 2-year overall survival rates in the MIE and OE group were: (1) stage 0 and I: 92% versus 90% (P = .864); (2) stage II: 83% versus 82% (P = .725); (3) stage III: 59% versus 55% (P = .592); (4) stage IV: 43% versus 43% (P = .802). The generalized estimating equation analysis showed that MIE had an independently positive impact on patients' postoperative QOL.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, MIE is a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. It may offer better perioperative outcomes, better postoperative QOL, and equal oncologic survival, compared with OE.

Comparison of outcomes of open and minimally invasive esophagectomy in 183 patients with cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Only few randomized trials or comparative studies with large number of patients have been reported on the outcomes of thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy (TLE) with cervical anastomosis and open 3-field esophagectomy (OE) for patients with esophageal cancer. The objective of this study is to compare the safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes between TLE and OE (via right throax, abdomen, and left neck) for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Clinical and surgical data of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent either TLE or OE between February 2011 and December 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic characteristics, pathological data, operative procedures, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes and survival in patients were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

Of the 183 patients included in this retrospective analysis, 94 underwent TLE and 89 underwent OE. Demographics, pathologic data, inpatient mortality, and overall surgical morbidity in both cohorts were almost identical. A significant difference was observed in blood loss (182.6±78.3 vs. 261.4±87.2 mL, P<0.001), hospital stay (13.9±7.5 vs. 17.1±10.2 days, P=0.017), overall surgical morbidity (25.5% vs. 46.1%, P=0.004), and rate of pulmonary and cardiac complication (9.6% vs. 27.0%, P=0.002; 4.1% vs. 12.4%, P=0.046) between TLE and OE groups; however, no difference in survival period was observed between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The procedure of TLE for esophageal cancer possesses advantages in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes compared with OE. The TLE procedure results in similar or potentially better outcomes.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: the first experience from Pakistan

Background. Two common procedures for esophageal resection are Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and transhiatal esophagectomy. Both procedures have high morbidity rates of 20–46%. Minimally invasive esophagectomy has been introduced to decrease morbidity. We report initial experience of MIE to determine the morbidity and mortality associated with this procedure during learning phase. Material and Methods. Patients undergoing MIE at our institute from January 2011 to May 2013 were reviewed. Record was kept for any morbidity and mortality. Descriptive statistics were presented as frequencies and continuous variables were presented as median. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan Meier curves. Results. We performed 51 minimally invasive esophagectomies. Perioperative morbidity was in 16 (31.37%) patients. There were 3 (5.88%) anastomotic leaks. We encountered 1 respiratory complication. Reexploration was required in 3 (5.88%) patients. Median operative time was 375 minutes. Median hospital stay was 10 days. The most frequent long-term morbidity was anastomotic narrowing observed in 5 (9.88%) patients. There were no perioperative mortalities. Our mean overall survival was 37.66 months (95% confidence interval 33.75 to 41.56 months). Mean disease-free survival was 24.43 months (95% CI 21.26 to 27.60 months). Conclusion. Minimally invasive esophagectomy, when performed in the learning phase, has acceptable morbidity and mortality.

Esophageal Cancer: Current Options for Therapeutic Management

BACKGROUND

Esophageal cancer (EC) is the eighth most common cancer worldwide. A worldwide-established consensus on therapeutic pathways for EC is still missing. Debate exists on whether neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment regimens improve the prognosis and which surgical approach reaches objective benefits.

SUMMARY

This article discusses the appropriate option of the current different curative treatments in patients with EC, including surgical treatment and adjuvant therapy.

KEY MESSAGE

To maximize survival and quality of life and also decrease postoperative complications, the present recommended therapeutic management of EC should be individualized multidisciplinary team approaches according to patients' staging and physiologic reserve.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The aim of this article is to provide a decision support and also a discussion based on clinical therapeutic strategy in order to characterize the beneficial approach which reaches an optimal balance between radical resection, postoperative outcome and long-term survival of EC.

Early oral feeding following thoracolaparoscopic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer

OBJECTIVES

Nil-by-mouth with enteral tube feeding is widely practised for several days after resection and reconstruction of oesophageal cancer. This study investigates early changes in postoperative gastric emptying and the feasibility of early oral feeding after thoracolaparoscopic oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and August 2013, gastric emptying of liquid food and the feasibility of early oral feeding after thoracolaparoscopic oesophagectomy was investigated in 68 patients. Sixty-five patients previously managed in the same unit who routinely took liquid food 7 days after thoracolaparoscopic oesophagectomy served as controls.

RESULTS

The mean preoperative half gastric emptying time (GET1/2) was 66.4 ± 38.4 min for all 68 patients, and the mean GET1/2 at postoperative day (POD) 1 and POD 7 was statistically significantly shorter than preoperative GET1/2 (23.9 ± 15.7 min and 24.1 ± 7.9 min, respectively, both P-values <0.001). Of the 68 patients who were enrolled to analyse the feasibility of early oral feeding, 2 (3.0%) patients could not take food as early as planned. The rate of total complication was 20.6% (14/68) and 29.2% (19/65) in the early oral feeding group and the late oral feeding group, respectively (P = 0.249). Compared with the late oral feeding group, time to first flatus and bowel movement was significantly shorter in the early oral feeding group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with preoperative gastric emptying, early postoperative gastric emptying for liquid food after oesophagectomy is significantly faster. Postoperative early oral feeding in patients with thoracolaparoscopic oesophagectomy is feasible and safe.

Comparative study of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in a single cancer center

BACKGROUND

In order to minimize the injury reaction during the surgery and reduce the morbidity rate, hence reducing the mortality rate of esophagectomy, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was introduced. The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative outcomes in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma undergoing minimally invasive or open esophagectomy (OE).

METHODS

The medical records of 176 consecutive patients, who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) between January 2009 and August 2013 in Cancer Institute & Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, were retrospectively reviewed. In the same period, 142 patients who underwent OE, either Ivor Lewis or McKeown approach, were selected randomly as controls. The clinical variables of paired groups were compared, including age, sex, Charlson score, tumor location, duration of surgery, number of harvested lymph nodes, morbidity rate, the rate of leak, pulmonary morbidity rate, mortality rate, and hospital length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

The number of harvested lymph nodes was not significantly different between MIE group and OE group (median 20 vs. 16, P = 0.740). However, patients who underwent MIE had longer operation time than the OE group (375 vs. 300 minutes, P < 0.001). Overall morbidity, pulmonary morbidity, the rate of leak, in-hospital death, and hospital LOS were not significantly different between MIE and OE groups. Morbidities including anastomotic leak and pulmonary morbidity, inhospital death, hospital LOS, and hospital expenses were not significantly different between MIE and OE groups as well.

CONCLUSIONS

MIE and OE appear equivalent with regard to early oncological outcomes. There is a trend that hospital LOS and hospital expenses are reduced in the MIE group than the OE group.