Superiority of Minimally Invasive Oesophagectomy in Reducing In-Hospital Mortality of Patients with Resectable Oesophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0132889. [PMID: 26196135 PMCID: PMC4509855 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132889]

Robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: technique and early outcomes

Esophagectomy is pivotal for the long-term survival in patients with early stage and advanced esophageal cancer, and improved perioperative care and advanced surgical techniques have contributed to reduced postoperative morbidity. However, despite these advances, esophagectomy continues to be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive esophageal surgery (MIE) has been increasingly used in patients undergoing surgery for esophageal cancer. Potential advantages of MIE include the decreased postoperative pain; lower postoperative wound infection, decreased pulmonary complications, and decreased length of hospitalization. Robotic esophageal surgery has the ability to overcome some of the limitations of laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approaches to esophagectomy while maintaining the benefits of the minimally invasive approach. In this article, we will review the clinical efficacy and outcomes associated with robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (RAIL).

Introduction of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in a Community Teaching Hospital

Background and Objectives:

The safety of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) outside of high-volume centers has not been studied. Therefore, we evaluated our experience with the introduction of MIE in the setting of a community teaching hospital.

Methods:

A retrospective cohort of all elective esophagectomy patients treated in a community hospital from 2008 through 2015 was evaluated (n = 57; open = 31 vs MIE = 26). Clavien-Dindo complication grades were recorded prospectively.

Results:

Mean age was 63 ± 11 years (range, 30–83), mean Charlson comorbidity index was 4.5 ± 1.7 and proportion of ASA score ≥3 was 87%. The groups did not differ in age, gender distribution, or comorbidity indices. There were 108 complications observed, including 2 deaths (3.5%, both coronary events). Postoperative complication rate was 77.1% and serious complication rate (grades 3 and 4) was 50.8% in the entire cohort. The rate of serious complications was similar (58% for open vs 42% for MIE group; 2-sided P = .089). MIE operations were longer (342 ± 109 vs 425 ± 74 minutes; P = .001). Length of stay trended toward not being significantly shorter among MIE cases (15 ± 13 vs 12 ± 12 days; P = .071). Logistic regression models including MIE status were not predictive of complications.

Conclusions:

Introduction of MIE esophagectomy in our community hospital was associated with prolonged operative time, but no detectable adverse outcomes. Length of stay was nonsignificantly shortened by the use of MIS esophagectomy.

Comparison of Endoscopic Resection and Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in Patients With Early Esophageal Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether endoscopic resection (ER) and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) are safe and effective for treating squamous intraepithelial neoplasia of the esophagus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed a total of 99 consecutive patients with pathologically confirmed early esophageal cancer between December 2007 and 2011. ER was performed in 59 patients, whereas MIE was performed in 40 patients. We compared the 2 groups according to R0 resection rates, treatment-related complications, mean hospital stay, local recurrence rates, and 3- and 4-year overall survival.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in the R0 resection rates between ER and MIE (94.9% vs. 97.5%, P>0.05). The occurrence rate of minor complications in the ER group was significantly lower than that in the thoracoscopic esophagectomy group (11.8% vs. 32.5%, P>0.05). The mean operative time in the ER group was 74±23 minutes, which was significantly shorter than that in the MIE group (298±46 min). The average length of hospital stay in the ER group was significantly shorter than that in the MIE group (P<0.001). No significant differences were observed in the local recurrence rates between the 2 groups (P>0.05). Similarly, no differences were found in the 3-year survival rate (ER: 96.6%, vs. MIE: 97.5%, P>0.05) and 4-year survival rate (ER: 91.5% vs. MIE: 90%, P>0.05) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

ER achieves the same positive results as MIE in the treatment of early esophageal cancer and is associated with a lower complication rate, a shorter recovery time, and a similar survival rate. However, multiple ER procedures were required for several patients in this study.

Non-inferiority of minimally invasive oesophagectomy: an 8-year retrospective case series

BACKGROUND

The trend towards laparoscopic surgery seen in other specialties has not occurred at the same pace in oesophagectomy. This stems from concerns regarding compromised oncological clearance, and complications associated with gastric tube necrosis and anastomotic failure. We present our experience of minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) compared to open and hybrid surgery. We aim to ascertain non-inferiority of MIO by evaluating impact on survival, oncological clearance by resection margin and lymph node harvest and post-operative complications.

METHODS

Data were sourced retrospectively 2008-2015. Three approaches were studied. MIO (3-stage Mckeown), hybrid (2-stage Ivor Lewis, laparoscopy, thoracotomy) and open (2-stage Ivor Lewis).

RESULTS

Five-year survival was 54.2%. Surgical approach had no significant impact on survival at any stage of disease (Stage 0/I p = 0.98; stage II p = 0.2; stage III p = 0.76). There was no statistically significant difference in oncological clearance by resection margins between procedures when compared by disease stage (p = 0.49). A higher number of nodes were harvested in hybrid [median 27.5 (6-65)] and open surgeries [median 26 (4-54)] than in MIO [median 20 (7-44)] (p > 0.01). Numbers of nodes resected did not impact risk of recurrence [recurrence, median 25 (6-54), no recurrence, 26 (4-65)] (p = 0.25). Anastomotic strictures (22.4%) and potential leaks (17.9%) were more common in MIO (strictures p > 0.01, leaks p = 0.08), although associated morbidity was lower. Respiratory complications were less common in MIO (2.9%) versus hybrid (13.3%) (p = 0.02). Wound infection and chyle leak were also lower (wound 1.5% MIO 3.5% open, p = 0.6; chyle leak 1.5% MIO, 6.7% hybrid, p = 0.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show no negative impact of MIO on survival or oncological clearance. Respiratory and wound complications are lower in MIO, but rates of anastomotic strictures and potential anastomotic leaks are increased. This may be due to the longer length of conduit and subclinical ischaemia at the anastomosis and merits further evaluation.

Intermittent pneumatic compression in combination with low-molecular weight heparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolic events in esophageal cancer surgery

INTRODUCTION

Aim of this study was to evaluate the use of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression (IPC) in the prevention of symptomatic venous thromboembolic events (VTE) in patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer.

METHODS

From a prospective database, all patients operated between 2010 and 2014 received IPC in addition to LMWH and were compared to a historical cohort of patients treated LMWH only (2004-2009).

RESULTS

Of the 313 included patients, 195 (62%) received IPC. Patients with IPC received neoadjuvant chemoradiation more often (45% vs. 3%, P < 0.001), whereas, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was equally distributed (31% vs. 34%, P = 0.631). There were no differences with regard to surgical approach, operative time, blood loss, and ICU stay. Patients treated without IPC had a longer hospital stay (18 vs. 15 days, P = 0.014). Overall, 12 clinical VTE's occurred in 11 patients, which consisted of two deep venous thromboses and 10 pulmonary embolisms. In the group of patients, who received IPC 1.5% developed a symptomatic VTE compared to 6.8% in patients without IPC (OR = 0.215; 95% CI = 0.06-0.83). Multivariate analysis identified IPC as the only independent prognostic factor correlated with a reduction in postoperative VTE's (OR = 0.225; 95% CI = 0.06-0.88).

CONCLUSION

The addition of IPC in patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer was associated with a reduction in symptomatic VTE's. J. Surg. Oncol. 2017;115:181-185. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Comparison of short-term outcomes and three yearsurvival between total minimally invasive McKeown and dual-incision esophagectomy

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the short‐term outcomes and three‐year survival between dual‐incision esophagectomy (DIE) and total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy (MIME) for esophageal cancer patients with negative upper mediastinal lymph nodes requiring esophagectomy and neck anastomosis.

Methods

One hundred and fifty patients underwent DIE, while 361 patients received total MIME. Perioperative outcomes and three‐year survival were compared in unmatched and propensity score matched data between two groups.

Results

Both unmatched and matched analysis demonstrated that there were no significant differences in the number of lymph nodes harvested, or major or minor complication rates between the DIE and MIME groups. Compared with patients who underwent DIE, patients who underwent total MIME had longer operation duration (310 minutes vs. 345 minutes; P = 0.002). However, there was significantly less intraoperative blood loss in the total MIME compared with the DIE group (191 mL vs. 287 mL, respectively; P < 0.001). Kaplan‐Meier analysis demonstrated a trend that patients who underwent MIME had longer overall (79.5% vs. 64.1%; P = 0.063) and disease‐free three‐year survival (65.3% vs. 82.8%; P = 0.058) compared with patients who underwent DIE.

Conclusions

Both total MIME and DIE are feasible for the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer patients with negative upper mediastinal lymph nodes requiring esophagectomy and neck anastomosis. However, MIME was associated with better overall and disease‐free three‐year survival compared with DIE.

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.

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

Background and objectives

The safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in comparison with the open esophagectomy (OE) remain uncertain in esophageal cancer treatment. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes of the two surgical modalities.

Methods

Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov with the following index words: “esophageal cancer”, “VATS”, “MIE”, “thoracoscopic esophagectomy”, and “open esophagectomy” for relative studies that compared the effects between MIE and OE. Random-effect models were used, and heterogeneity was assessed.

Results

A total of 20 studies were included in the analysis, consisting of four randomized controlled trials and 16 prospective studies. MIE has reduced operative blood loss (P=0.0009) but increased operation time (P=0.009) in comparison with OE. Patients get less respiratory complications (risk ratio =0.74, 95% CI =0.58–0.94, P=0.01) and better overall survival (hazard ratio =0.54, 95% CI =0.42–0.70, P<0.00001) in the MIE group than the OE group. No statistical difference was observed between the two groups in terms of lymph node harvest, R0 resection, and other major complications.

Conclusion

MIE is a better choice for esophageal cancer because patients undergoing MIE may benefit from reduced blood loss, less respiratory complications, and also improved overall survival condition compared with OE. However, more randomized controlled trials are still needed to verify these differences.

Report on First International Workshop on Robotic Surgery in Thoracic Oncology

A workshop of experts from France, Germany, Italy, and the United States took place at Humanitas Research Hospital Milan, Italy, on February 10 and 11, 2016, to examine techniques for and applications of robotic surgery to thoracic oncology. The main topics of presentation and discussion were robotic surgery for lung resection; robot-assisted thymectomy; minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancer; new developments in computer-assisted surgery and medical applications of robots; the challenge of costs; and future clinical research in robotic thoracic surgery. The following article summarizes the main contributions to the workshop. The Workshop consensus was that since video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is becoming the mainstream approach to resectable lung cancer in North America and Europe, robotic surgery for thoracic oncology is likely to be embraced by an increasing numbers of thoracic surgeons, since it has technical advantages over VATS, including intuitive movements, tremor filtration, more degrees of manipulative freedom, motion scaling, and high-definition stereoscopic vision. These advantages may make robotic surgery more accessible than VATS to trainees and experienced surgeons and also lead to expanded indications. However, the high costs of robotic surgery and absence of tactile feedback remain obstacles to widespread dissemination. A prospective multicentric randomized trial (NCT02804893) to compare robotic and VATS approaches to stages I and II lung cancer will start shortly.

The surgical management of esophago-gastric junctional cancer

The best available surgical strategy in the treatment of resectable esophago-gastric junctional (EGJ) cancer is a controversial topic. In this review we evaluate the current literature and scientific evidence examining the surgical treatment of locally advanced EGJ cancer by comparing esophagectomy with gastrectomy, transhiatal with transthoracic esophagectomy, minimally invasive with open esophagectomy, and less extensive with more extensive lymphadenectomy. We also assess endoscopic procedures increasingly used for early EGJ cancer. The current evidence does not favor any of the techniques over the others in terms of oncological outcomes. Health-related quality of life may be better following gastrectomy compared to esophagectomy. Minimally invasive procedures might be less prone to surgical complications. Endoscopic techniques are safe and effective alternatives for early-stage EGJ cancer in the short term, but surgical treatment is the mainstay in fit patients due to the risk of lymph node metastasis. Any benefit of lymphadenectomy extending beyond local or regional nodes is uncertain. This review demonstrates the great need for well-designed clinical studies to improve the knowledge in how to optimize and standardize the surgical treatment of EGJ cancer.

Hybrid Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

The last 25 years have witnessed a steady increase in the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy for the treatment of esophageal cancer. However, it is unclear which the optimal minimally invasive approach is: totally minimally invasive or hybrid (laparoscopic assisted or thoracoscopic assisted)? The current evidence from nonrandomized control trials suggests that hybrid laparoscopic-assisted esophagectomy couples the benefits of laparoscopy and the advantages of thoracotomy, leading to reduced surgical trauma without jeopardizing survival compared with open esophagectomy. Compromised blood supply and tension on the anastomosis are two of the main factors that lead to anastomotic leakage. Recent studies have shown that a side-to-side mechanical intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis is associated with low anastomotic complications. This article discusses surgical aspects and outcomes of hybrid laparoscopic-assisted esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Failure to rescue patients from early critical complications of oesophagogastric cancer surgery

'Failure to rescue' is a significant cause of mortality in gastrointestinal surgery. Differences in mortality between high and low-volume hospitals are not associated with large difference in complication rates but to the ability of the hospital to effectively rescue patients from the complications. We reviewed the critical complications following surgery for oesophageal and gastric cancer, their prevention and reasons for failure to rescue. Strategies focussing on perioperative optimization, the timely recognition and management of complications may be essential to improving outcome in low-volume hospitals.

Updated experiences with minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

AIM: To update our experiences with minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 445 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy between January 2009 and July 2015 at the Cancer Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and used 103 patients who underwent open McKeown esophagectomy in the same period as controls. Among 375 patients who underwent total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy, 180 in the early period were chosen for the study of learning curve of total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy. These 180 minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomies performed by five surgeons were divided into three groups according to time sequence as group 1 (n = 60), group 2 (n = 60) and group 3 (n = 60).

RESULTS: Patients who underwent total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy had significantly less intraoperative blood loss than patients who underwent hybrid minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy or open McKeown esophagectomy (100 mL vs 300 mL vs 200 mL, P = 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in operation time, number of harvested lymph nodes, or postoperative morbidity including incidence of pulmonary complication and anastomotic leak between total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy, hybrid minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy and open McKeown esophagectomy groups. There were no significant differences in 5-year survival between these three groups (60.5% vs 47.9% vs 35.6%, P = 0.735). Patients in group 1 had significantly longer duration of operation than those in groups 2 and 3. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, number of harvested lymph nodes, or postoperative morbidity including incidence of pulmonary complication and anastomotic leak between groups 1, 2 and 3.

CONCLUSION: Total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy was associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss and comparable short term and long term survival compared with hybrid minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy or open Mckeown esophagectomy. At least 12 cases are needed to master total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy in a high volume center.