Minimally invasive esophagectomy: results of a prospective phase II multicenter trial-the eastern cooperative oncology group (E2202) study. Ann Surg. 2015;261:702-707. [PMID: 25575253 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000000993]

Totally minimally invasive two-stage esophagectomy with intrathoracic hand-sewn anastomosis: short-term clinical and oncological outcomes

Several esophageal resection techniques have been reported in literature. The objective of this study is to assess postoperative and oncological outcomes of two-stage minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in a prone position using thoracoscopic hand-sewn anastomosis. Consecutive patients who underwent two-stage MIE in 2016 performed by the senior author were included. This was compared with the preceding cohort of consecutive patients who underwent two-stage hybrid esophagectomy (HE). The primary outcome was 30-day morbidity and mortality. The secondary outcomes were operation duration, length of stay (LOS), total nodes examined (TNE), number of positive nodes (NPN), and resection margin. Overall, 15 patients underwent MIE and 11 patients underwent HE. Respiratory complications occurred in three (20.0%) patients in the MIE group and in five (45.5%) patients in the HE group (P = 0.218). Cardiac complications occurred in two (18.2%) patients, and two other patients (18.2%) experienced anastomotic leak in the HE group. Mean operative duration was 349 ± 41.6 min in MIE and 309 ± 47.8 min in HE (P = 0.040). Median LOS was 10 days (range: 7-70) in MIE and 13 days (range: 10-116) in HE (P = 0.045). Median TNE was 23 (range: 12-36) in MIE and 20 (range: 14-47) in HE (P = 0.775). Longitudinal margin was involved in one patient (9.1%) in HE and no longitudinal margin was involved in the MIE group. Circumferential resection margin was involved in seven patients (46.7%) in MIE and in four patients (36.4%) in HE (P = 0.391). Two-stage MIE using hand-sewn technique is safe and feasible without compromising surgical and oncological outcomes. A multicenter large trial is recommended to confirm these results.

Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery: Robotic Surgery versus Laparoscopic Procedures for Esophageal Malignancy

Background

The evolution of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) also extends to the field of esophageal surgery and has brought forth the development of several approaches of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). Hybrid and total minimally invasive operative techniques have proven beneficial compared to open surgery and are currently evaluated against robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). We aim to review the current literature regarding the position of MIE versus RAMIE.

Methods

A systematic review of the relevant literature on minimally invasive esophageal surgery for cancer is presented. A PubMed search was carried out for the period of 1992-2018 with the following search terms: 'esophageal cancer', 'minimally invasive surgery', 'resection', 'transhiatal', 'transthoracic', 'MIE', 'hybrid', 'robotic resection', 'RAMIE', 'RATE'.

Results

Hybrid and total minimally invasive operative techniques have proven beneficial, especially with regard to pulmonary complications, compared to open surgery. Oncologic outcomes appear equivalent between open and minimally invasive techniques. Currently, the position of RAMIE is being evaluated against other minimally invasive techniques.

Conclusion

All minimally invasive techniques confer the expected reduction in perioperative morbidity compared to open surgery. However, MIS is still evolving with regard to specific technical challenges, especially anastomotic techniques.

Multidisciplinary Approach to the Management of Esophageal Malignancies

INTRODUCTION

A multidisciplinary approach in the management of complex malignancies is becoming more common, and likewise, adopting such an approach to the care of patients with locally advanced esophageal is recommended in order to optimize clinical outcomes.

METHODS

In this review, we discuss both the surgical and medical oncology perspectives in the management of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. We review the data supporting the current standard-of-care approach, namely trimodality therapy with neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy followed by surgery. Other aspects of managing these patients including the control of dysphagia and pain as well as nutritional support are discussed. Finally, we review data that support the importance of incorporating a multidisciplinary streamlined approach in the management of these patients.

RESULTS

Rather than having patients see each provider separately, a multidisciplinary approach to esophageal cancer allows for the seamless flow of communication and proactive management of the patient's symptoms. These benefits include increasing the likelihood of evidence-based decision making, shorter time to treatment, and increased patient quality of life, all of which can result in improved patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The use of a multidisciplinary team can lead to a more accurate staging paradigm and thereby, better management decisions that translate to improved clinical outcomes. Therefore, optimizing the multidisciplinary approach for the care of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer is essential for successful and individualized patient care.

Fully robotic da Vinci Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in four-arm technique-problems and solutions

The aim of this technical note is a step-by-step description of a fully robotic abdominothoracic esophagectomy with an intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy. We report on our technique and short-term results of 75 patients undergoing an Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy using a fully robotic 4-arm approach in the abdominal and thoracic phase with a hand-sewn intrathoracic anastomosis. There are several important steps and differences to consider compared to the conventional minimal invasive approach (patient's positioning, anaesthesiological set up, port placement, gastric conduit pull up, technique of esophagostrostomy). Mean operative time was 392 minutes (240-610) with a 94% R0 resection status. Conversion to open procedure occurred in 2 (2.6%) in the abdominal, and 14 (18.2%) in the thoracic phase. Main reasons for conversion were problems during the lifting of the gastric conduit and difficulties in the construction of the esophagogastrostomy. The rate dropped during the last 20 patients (1/20 (10%). Our results suggest that the reported technique is safe and feasible. It satisfies the oncological principles and provides the advantages of robotic assisted minimal invasive surgery.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy via Sweet approach in combination with cervical mediastinoscopy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a case series

Objective:

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly used for the treatment of esophageal cancer. However, MIE via the Sweet approach has seldom been reported owing to the challenging procedure for a mediastinal lymph node. Thus, the approach of MIE via left-sided thoracoscopy coupled with video-assisted cervical mediastinoscopy (MIE-SM) was explored for eradicating the mediastinal lymph nodes and recurrent laryngeal nerve; the incidence of perioperative complications, mortality, and surgical radicality were analyzed.

Materials and Methods:

Thirty patients with esophageal carcinoma underwent MIE-SM between June 2014 and February 2016. The primary outcome was postoperative morbidity within 2 weeks postsurgery. The secondary outcome was surgical radicality, including the circumferential margins, and the number of lymph nodes dissected.

Results:

The MIE-SM was completed in all patients within 367.6±68.7 minutes. The incidences of postoperative morbidities including pulmonary complications, anastomotic leakage, chylothorax, or recurrent nerve injury were 43.3%.

Conclusion:

The MIE-SM was utilized for the first time to reduce the disadvantage of purely Sweet and McKeown approach, with favorable efficacy in the mediastinal and laryngeal recurrent nerve lymph node eradication. Thus, MIE-SM might be a promising alternative approach in treating esophageal cancer in selected patients.

Technique of robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE)

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has gained popularity over the last two decades as an oncologically sound alternative to open esophagectomy. Robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been developed at few highly-specialized centers, and overall experience with this technique remains limited. Herein, we describe our overall approach to this operation and specific technical issues.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophageal Resection: Three-year Follow-up of the Previously Reported Randomized Controlled Trial: the TIME Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate 3-year survival following a randomized controlled trial comparing minimally invasive with open esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND

Research on minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has shown faster postoperative recovery and a marked decrease in pulmonary complications. Debate is ongoing as to whether the procedure is equivalent to open resection regarding oncologic outcomes. The study is a follow-up study of the TIME-trial (traditional invasive vs minimally invasive esophagectomy, a multicenter, randomized trial).

METHODS

Between June 2009 and March 2011, patients with a resectable intrathoracic esophageal carcinoma, including the gastroesophageal junction tumors (Siewert I), were randomized between open and MI esophagectomy with curative intent. Primary outcome was 3-year disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes include overall survival, lymph node yield, short-term morbidity, mortality, complications, radicality, local recurrence, and metastasis. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR TC 2452. Both trial protocol and short-term results have been published previously.

RESULTS

One hundred fifteen patients were included from 5 European hospitals and randomly assigned to open (n = 56) or MI esophagectomy (n = 59). Combined overall 3-year survival was 40.4% (SD 7.7%) in the open group versus 50.5% (SD 8%) in the minimally invasive group (P = 0.207). The hazard ratio (HR) is 0.883 (0.540 to 1.441) for MIE compared with open surgery. Disease-free 3-year survival was 35.9% (SD 6.8%) in the open versus 40.2% (SD 6.9%) in the MI group [HR 0.691 (0.389 to 1.239).

CONCLUSIONS

The study presented here depicted no differences in disease-free and overall 3-year survival for open and MI esophagectomy. These results, together with short-term results, further support the use of minimally invasive surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal cancer.

Impact of laparoscopy on the prevention of pulmonary complications after thoracoscopic esophagectomy using data from JCOG0502: a prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) are the most common causes of serious morbidity after esophagectomy, which involves both thoracic and abdominal incisions. Although the thoracoscopic approach decreases PPC frequency after esophagectomy, it remains unclear whether the frequency is further decreased by combining it with laparoscopic gastric mobilization. This study aimed to determine the impact of laparoscopy on the prevention of PPCs after thoracoscopic esophagectomy using data from the Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study 0502 (JCOG0502).

METHODS

JCOG0502 is a four-arm prospective study comparing esophagectomy with definitive chemo-radiotherapy. The use of thoracoscopy and/or laparoscopy was decided at the surgeon's discretion. PPCs were defined as one or more of the following postoperative morbidities grade ≥2 (as per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0): pneumonia, atelectasis, and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

RESULTS

A total of 379 patients were enrolled in JCOG0502. Of these, 210 patients underwent esophagectomy via thoracotomy with laparotomy (n = 102), thoracotomy with laparoscopy (n = 7), thoracoscopy with laparotomy (n = 43), and thoracoscopy with laparoscopy (n = 58). PPC frequency was reduced to a greater extent by thoracoscopy than by thoracotomy (thoracoscopy 15.8%, thoracotomy 30.3%; p = 0.015). However, following thoracoscopic esophagectomy, laparoscopy failed to further decrease the PPC frequency compared with laparotomy (laparoscopy 15.5%, laparotomy 16.3%; p = 1.00). Univariable analysis showed that thoracoscopy (shown above) and less blood loss (<350 mL 16.3%, ≥350 mL 30.2%; p = 0.022) were associated with PPC prevention, whereas laparoscopy showed a borderline significant association (laparoscopy 15.4%, laparotomy 26.9%; p = 0.079). Multivariable analysis also showed that thoracoscopy and less blood loss were associated with PPC prevention.

CONCLUSION

Thoracoscopic approach to esophagectomy significantly reduced PPC frequency with minimal additional effect from laparoscopic gastric mobilization.

Oesophageal cancer

Oesophageal cancer is the sixth most common cause of cancer-related death worldwide and is therefore a major global health challenge. The two major subtypes of oesophageal cancer are oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), which are epidemiologically and biologically distinct. OSCC accounts for 90% of all cases of oesophageal cancer globally and is highly prevalent in the East, East Africa and South America. OAC is more common in developed countries than in developing countries. Preneoplastic lesions are identifiable for both OSCC and OAC; these are frequently amenable to endoscopic ablative therapies. Most patients with oesophageal cancer require extensive treatment, including chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy and/or surgical resection. Patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal cancer are treated with palliative chemotherapy; those who are human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive may also benefit from trastuzumab treatment. Immuno-oncology therapies have also shown promising early results in OSCC and OAC. In this Primer, we review state-of-the-art knowledge on the biology and treatment of oesophageal cancer, including screening, endoscopic ablative therapies and emerging molecular targets, and we discuss best practices in chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, surgery and the maintenance of patient quality of life.

Hybrid and total minimally invasive esophagectomy: how I do it

Esophagectomy is a major surgical procedure associated with a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive esophagectomy is becoming the preferred approach because of the potential to limit surgical trauma, reduce respiratory complications, and promote earlier functional recovery. Various hybrid and total minimally invasive surgical techniques have been introduced in clinical practice over the past 20 years, and minimally invasive esophagectomy has been shown equivalent to open surgery concerning the short-term outcomes. Implementation of a minimally invasive esophagectomy program is technically demanding and requires a significant learning curve and the infrastructure of a dedicated multidisciplinary center where optimal staging, individualized therapy, and perioperative care can be provided to the patient. Both hybrid and total minimally invasive techniques of esophagectomy have proven safe and effective in expert centers. The choice of the surgical approach should be driven by preoperative staging, tumor site and histology, comorbidity, patient's anatomy and physiological status, and surgeon's experience.

The Prevalence of Overall and Initial Lymph Node Metastases in Clinical T1N0 Thoracic Esophageal Cancer: From the Results of JCOG0502, a Prospective Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the sites and frequencies of overall and initial lymph node (LN) metastases (LNMs) of clinical T1N0 esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND

The sites and frequencies of initial LNMs and sentinel LNs (SLNs) of esophageal cancer remain unclear.

METHODS

The Japan Clinical Oncology Group JCOG0502 trial was a 4-arm prospective study that compared esophagectomy with chemoradiotherapy for clinical T1N0 esophageal cancer in both randomized and patient-preference arms. The preoperative diagnostic accuracy was evaluated for patients assigned to the surgery arm. Patients who withdrew consent and who were not treated were excluded. All patients underwent esophagectomy with D2 or greater LN dissection. From the pathologic findings, sites and frequencies of LNMs and SLNs were assessed and the frequency of skip LNMs was calculated.

RESULTS

In total, 211 patients underwent LNM and SLN analysis. Regarding N-factor accuracy, 57 (27.0%) of 211 clinical N0 cases had pathologic LNMs. The upper mediastinal and mediastinal/abdominal regions were frequent sites of LNMs in upper and lower thoracic cases, respectively. However, in middle thoracic cases, LNMs were observed in the neck, mediastinal, and abdominal regions, and pathologic SLN spread to all 3 fields. The frequency of skip LNMs was 36.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

A clinical diagnosis of T1N0 is not sufficiently accurate, and therefore, it is unacceptable to omit LN dissection or minimize the prophylactic radiation field. SLNs, which are not location restricted, should be surveyed in all 3 fields.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer according to the location of the tumor: Experience of 251 patients

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly used for the treatment of esophageal cancer. However, the ideal approach of MIE is not yet standardized. We explore the ideal approach of MIE according to the location of the tumor and compare the clinical outcomes between patients with cancer arising in the upper third of the esophagus and those with tumors involving the middle and lower third of the esophagus.

METHODS

We included patients with esophageal carcinoma and had clear indications for MIE. For cancer arising in the upper third of the esophagus, MIE McKeown approach was performed. For tumors involving the middle and lower third of the esophagus, MIE Ivor Lewis approach was adopted.

RESULTS

Of the 251 patients included in this analysis, 200 patients underwent Ivor-Lewis MIE and 51 patients underwent McKeown MIE. The incidence of anastomotic leak, anastomotic stenosis and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury was significantly higher in the McKeown MIE group than that in the Ivor Lewis MIE group. The 30-day postoperative mortality rate was 1.2% (n = 1) in the McKeown MIE group. Lymph nodes harvested were significantly more in the MIE-McKeown group than in Ivor Lewis MIE group (P < 0.05). The median follow-up period was 15 months (1-25 months) and the overall survival rate at 1 year stratified by pathologic stage at esophagectomy was 95.9% (stage 1), 83.8% (stage II), 73.4% (stage III).

CONCLUSIONS

MIE for esophageal cancer according to the location and clinical stage of the tumor will decrease all postoperative complications and may yield the greatest benefit from surgery.

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.

Preservation of replaced left hepatic artery during robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: A case series

OBJECTIVE

Finding of a significant replaced left hepatic artery (RLHA) during esophagectomy is relatively rare, with an incidence of approximately 5%. Sparing of the artery may be required to avoid complications of liver ischemia. Robotic assistance during esophagectomy may provide a technically superior method of artery preservation with minimally invasive approaches.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case series of patients undergoing robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) identified to have a significant RLHA at time of surgery.

RESULTS

Five patients with a significant RLHA were identified from a series of over 100 RAMIE operations. Preservation of RLHA was accomplished in all cases without need for conversion, no intra-operative complications, and no post-operative liver dysfunction. The stomach was suitable and used for conduit reconstruction in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Sparing of the RLHA during RAMIE is feasible and effective. The robotic assisted approach may obviate the need for open conversion during these complex minimally invasive operations.

[Oncologic esophageal resection and reconstruction : Open, hybrid, minimally invasive or robotic?]

Minimally invasive resections are increasingly employed in oncologic surgery for esophageal carcinoma. The new German S3 guideline states that esophagectomy, as well as reconstruction of the esophagus, can be performed minimally invasively or in combination with open techniques (hybrid). However, the current value of different techniques - ranging from complete minimally invasive esophagectomy over hybrid to robotic surgery - remains unregarded.This review provides a critical comparison of these techniques based on current evidence. Minimally invasive procedures of oncologic esophageal resection are safe in experienced hands and show numerous advantages with regard to postoperative reconvalescence. Laparoscopic gastrolysis with intra-abdominal lymphadenectomy and muscle sparing as well as anterolateral mini-thoracotomy (also via VATS as single-port technique) as a hybrid method also result in a relevant reduction of postoperative mortality and offer the possibility of extended mediastinal lymphadenectomy, which requires a high level of expertise when performed thoracoscopically. At present, robotic esophagectomy is applied in only a few clinics in Germany. A lack of evidence based on studies for esophageal surgery, as well as high acquisition and operating costs of the robotic system, have to be taken into account.

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.

Hybrid minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation yields excellent long-term survival outcomes with minimal morbidity

BACKGROUND

There is a clear survival benefit to neoadjuvant chemoradiation prior to esophagectomy for patients with stages II-III esophageal cancer. A minimally invasive esophagectomy approach may decrease morbidity but is more challenging in a previously radiated field and therefore patients who undergo neoadjuvant chemoradiation may experience more postoperative complications.

METHODS

A prospective database of all esophageal cancer patients who underwent attempted hybrid minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy was maintained between 2006 and 2015. The clinical characteristics, neoadjuvant treatments, perioperative complications, and survival outcomes were reviewed.

RESULTS

Overall 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 0.8% (1/131) and 2.3% (3/131), respectively. The majority of patients 58% (76/131) underwent induction treatment without significant adverse impact on mortality, major complications, or hospital stay. Overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 85.9%, 65.3%, and 53.9%. Five-year survival by pathologic stage was stage I 68.9%, stage II 54.0%, and stage III 29.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

The hybrid minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy approach results in low perioperative morbidity and mortality and is well tolerated after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Good long-term overall survival rates likely resulted from combined concurrent neoadjuvant chemoradiation in the majority of patients, which did not impact the ability to safely perform the operation or postoperative complications rates. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:838-847. © 2016 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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.

The impact of the acute respiratory distress syndrome on outcome after oesophagectomy

BACKGROUND

The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is a serious complication of major surgery and consumes substantial healthcare resources. Oesophagectomy is associated with high rates of ARDS. The aim of this study was to characterize patients and identify risk factors for developing ARDS after oesophagectomy.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of data from 331 patients gathered during the Beta Agonists Lung Injury Prevention Trial was undertaken. Characteristics and outcomes of patients with early (first 72 h postoperatively) and late (after 72 h) ARDS were determined. Linear and multivariate regression analysis was used to study the differences between early and late ARDS and identify risk factors.

RESULTS

ARDS was associated with more non-respiratory organ failure (early 44.1%, late 75.0%, no ARDS 27.6% P<0.001), longer ICU stay (mean early 12.1, late 20.2, no ARDS 7.3 days P<0.001) and longer hospital stay (mean early 18.1, late 24.5, no ARDS 14.2 days P<0.001) but no difference in mortality or quality of life. Older patients (OR 1.06 (1.00 to 1.13), P=0.045) and those with mid-oesophageal tumours (OR 7.48 (1.62-34.5), P=0.010) had a higher risk for ARDS.

CONCLUSIONS

Early and late ARDS after oesophagectomy increases intensive care and hospital length of stay. Given the high incidence of ARDS, cohorts of patients undergoing oesophagectomy may be useful as models for studies investigating ARDS prevention and treatment. Further investigations aimed at reducing perioperative ARDS are warranted.

Lymph node dissection in esophageal carcinoma: Minimally invasive esophagectomy vs open surgery

AIM: To compare lymph node dissection results of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open surgery for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data from patients who underwent MIE or open surgery for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma from January 2011 to September 2014. Number of lymph nodes resected, positive lymph node (pN+) rate, lymph node sampling (LNS) rate and lymph node metastatic (LNM) rate were evaluated.

RESULTS: Among 447 patients included, 123 underwent MIE and 324 underwent open surgery. The number of lymph nodes resected did not significantly differ between the MIE and open surgery groups (21.1 ± 4.3 vs 20.4 ± 3.8, respectively, P = 0.0944). The pN+ rate of stage T3 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in the open surgery group was higher than that in the MIE group (16.3% vs 11.4%, P = 0.031), but no differences was observed for stages T1 and T2 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The LNS rate at left para-recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) site was significantly higher for open surgery than for MIE (80.2% vs 43.9%, P < 0.001), but no differences were noted at other sites. The LNM rate at left para-RLN site in the open surgery group was significantly higher than that in the MIE group, regardless of pathologic T stage.

CONCLUSION: For stages T1 and T2 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, the lymph node dissection result after MIE was comparable to that achieved by open surgery. However, the efficacy of MIE in lymphadenectomy for stage T3 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, particularly at left para-RLN site, remains to be improved.

Minimally invasive surgery for upper gastrointestinal cancer: Our experience and review of the literature

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, characterized by minimal access, has been increasingly performed worldwide. It not only results in better cosmetic outcomes, but also reduces intraoperative blood loss and postoperative pain, leading to faster recovery; however, endoscopically enhanced anatomy and improved hemostasis via positive intracorporeal pressure generated by CO2 insufflation have not contributed to reduction in early postoperative complications or improvement in long-term outcomes. Since 1995, we have been actively using MIS for operable patients with resectable upper GI cancer and have developed stable and robust methodology in conducting totally laparoscopic gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer and prone thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer using novel technology including da Vinci Surgical System (DVSS). We have recently demonstrated that use of DVSS might reduce postoperative local complications including pancreatic fistula after gastrectomy and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy after esophagectomy. In this article, we present the current status and future perspectives on MIS for gastric and esophageal cancer based on our experience and a review of the literature.

Translation, validation of the EORTC esophageal cancer quality-of-life questionnaire for Japanese with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: analysis in thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to develop and examine the reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaire-esophageal cancer (OES18) module for its use in Japan.

METHODS

We followed a two-phase process to translate the questionnaire, according to the guidelines of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer OES18. Phase 1: the first intermediary Japanese version was produced according to European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life unit translation project guidelines. The second intermediary version was the result of a backward translation project and two peer-to-peer discussion by healthcare professionals. Phase 2: the final Japanese version was produced after focus group discussions with team members and semistructured interviews.

RESULTS

Fifty patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, who had undergone curative thoracic esophagectomy, participated in the study. The Japanese translated version of quality-of-life questionnaire-OES18 yielded cultural adaptation and validation scores whose reliability was confirmed by internal consistency tests. Convergent validity was moderate to high (from r = 0.671-0.903; P < 0.01), whereas discriminant validity was acceptably low. Significant reduction in pain-scale values was noted postoperatively in the thoracoscopic approach when compared with the thoracotomy approach (scale value: 9.62 vs. 12.71; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

We developed the Japanese version of quality-of-life questionnaire-OES18. This module has good psychometric validity and recommended to assess the health-related quality of life in Japanese patients.

Role of Barium Swallow in Diagnosing Clinically Significant Anastomotic Leak following Esophagectomy

Background

Barium swallow is performed following esophagectomy to evaluate the anastomosis for detection of leaks and to assess the emptying of the gastric conduit. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of the barium swallow study in diagnosing anastomotic leaks following esophagectomy.

Methods

Patients who underwent esophagectomy from January 2000 to December 2013 at our institution were investigated. Barium swallow was routinely done between days 5–7 to detect a leak. These results were compared to clinically determined leaks (defined by neck wound infection requiring jejunal feeds and or parenteral nutrition) during the postoperative period. The sensitivity and specificity of barium swallow in diagnosing clinically significant anastomotic leaks was determined.

Results

A total of 395 esophagectomies were performed (mean age, 62.2 years). The indications for the esophagectomy were as follows: malignancy (n=320), high-grade dysplasia (n=14), perforation (n=27), benign stricture (n=7), achalasia (n=16), and other (n=11). A variety of techniques were used including transhiatal (n=351), McKeown (n=35), and Ivor Lewis (n=9) esophagectomies. Operative mortality was 2.8% (n=11). Three hundred and sixty-eight patients (93%) underwent barium swallow study after esophagectomy. Clinically significant anastomotic leak was identified in 36 patients (9.8%). Barium swallow was able to detect only 13/36 clinically significant leaks. The sensitivity of the swallow in diagnosing a leak was 36% and specificity was 97%. The positive and negative predictive values of barium swallow study in detecting leaks were 59% and 93%, respectively.

Conclusion

Barium swallow is an insensitive but specific test for detecting leaks at the cervical anastomotic site after esophagectomy.

High Intrathoracic Anastomosis with Thoracoscopy Is Safe and Feasible for Treatment of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has the potential to reduce the morbidity and mortality of esophageal cancer surgery. Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) has a high incidence of earlier lymphatic spread and is usually located more proximal to the incisor than esophageal adenocarcinoma; consequently, the anastomosis should be made more proximal in the thorax or in the neck. We adopted the proximal intrathoracic anastomotic technique using thoracoscopy for mid-to-lower ESCC.

METHODS

From October 2010 to August 2014, fifty-eight consecutive patients underwent MIE for ESCC. After laparoscopic gastric tubing, thoracoscopic esophageal resection and reconstruction were performed using a 28-mm circular stapler following radical mediastinal lymph node dissection. We tried to make an anastomosis at the apex of the chest. Postoperative outcomes, including overall survival and recurrence, were assessed.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 64.3±9 years. The mean operative time was 371.8±51.6 minutes, and the duration of the thorax procedure was 254.8±38.3 minutes. The mean number of lymph nodes dissected was 31±11.7. The mean intensive care unit (ICU) stay and hospital stay were 3.5±8.2 hours and 13.6±7.4 days, respectively. The level of anastomosis was 22.3±1.8cm from the incisor. One patient died of uncontrolled sepsis due to necrosis of the gastric graft. Two patients developed small contained leakage. Nine patients exhibited distant metastasis during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Thoracoscopic intrathoracic anastomosis at the proximal esophagus is feasible and safe.

Esophageal surgery in minimally invasive era

The widespread popularity of new surgical technologies such as laparoscopy, thoracoscopy and robotics has led many surgeons to treat esophageal diseases with these methods. The expected benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) mainly include reductions of postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and pain and better cosmetic results. All of these benefits could potentially be of great interest when dealing with the esophagus due to the potentially severe complications that can occur after conventional surgery. Moreover, robotic platforms are expected to reduce many of the difficulties encountered during advanced laparoscopic and thoracoscopic procedures such as anastomotic reconstructions, accurate lymphadenectomies, and vascular sutures. Almost all esophageal diseases are approachable in a minimally invasive way, including diverticula, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, achalasia, perforations and cancer. Nevertheless, while the limits of MIS for benign esophageal diseases are mainly technical issues and costs, oncologic outcomes remain the cornerstone of any procedure to cure malignancies, for which the long-term results are critical. Furthermore, many of the minimally invasive esophageal operations should be compared to pharmacologic interventions and advanced pure endoscopic procedures; such a comparison requires a difficult literature analysis and leads to some confounding results of clinical trials. This review aims to examine the evidence for the use of MIS in both malignancies and more common benign disease of the esophagus, with a particular emphasis on future developments and ongoing areas of research.

Nationwide analysis of short-term surgical outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy for malignancy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is being increasingly utilized for esophageal cancer. It is unclear if MIE if being safely performed with satisfactory outcomes across the USA. We aimed to analyze the short-term surgical outcomes of MIE as compared to open esophagectomy (OE).

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients who underwent MIE or OE for esophageal malignancy between 2010 and 2011. Margin positivity, lymph node retrieval, 30-day mortality, 30-day unplanned readmission rate and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

A total of 4047 patients were identified; 3050 (75.4%) underwent OE, and 997 (24.6%) underwent MIE. The proportion of MIE increased from 21.9% in 2010 to 27.4% in 2011 (p < 0.001). The conversion rate was 13.7%. There were no differences in-patient or tumor characteristics between the two cohorts. OE and MIE were comparable in terms of margin positive resection rate (7.4% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.48), 30-day unplanned readmission rate (7.6% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.64) and 30-day mortality rate (4.3% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.71). Compared to OE, MIE was associated with higher node retrieval (median 12 vs 14, p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (median 11.0 vs 10.0 days, p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that surgical approach (OE vs MIE) was not associated with 30-day mortality rate. In an ANCOVA analysis, MIE was independently associated with a shorter hospital stay compared to OE (estimated mean difference 1.57 ± 0.53 days, p = 0.003). MIE patients who underwent conversion had a longer hospital stay compared to those who did not (11.0 vs 10.0 days, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

MIE is being offered more frequently to patients with esophageal cancer, and maybe accompanied with better short-term outcomes including shorter hospital stay when compared to open esophagectomy.

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy: the Ivor Lewis approach

Oesophagectomy is a challenging operation involving multiple body cavities. The traditional open approach has several described techniques. The Ivor Lewis approach is one of the most commonly utilized approaches and includes a laparotomy and a thoracotomy. Traditionally, this has resulted in some morbidity. This article describes a stepwise approach to a minimally invasive Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy including laparoscopic mobilization of the stomach, formation of the gastric conduit, placement of a feeding jejunostomy tube, thoracoscopic oesophageal mobilization and resection and a stapled oesophago-gastric anastomosis. Common pitfalls and technical insights will be presented.

Minimally Invasive Techniques and Hybrid Operations for Esophageal Cancer

Background

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is slowly gaining acceptance due to advantages in short-term outcome. While evidence is slowly increasing, the discussion about MIE is still controversial.

Methods

A literature review was performed to compare MIE with open esophagectomy (OE). Current studies are summarized in view of short- and long-term outcome as well as oncological accuracy.

Results

The majority of studies show that MIE is associated with a significant reduction of pulmonary complications, blood loss, and shorter length of stay on the intensive care unit. Pulmonary complications are reduced by 14-65%. MIE shows an improved quality of life 6 weeks after surgery. There is some evidence that the endoscopic reintervention rate may be higher after MIE than after OE. Mortality rates do not differ. Regarding oncological results, the rate of R0 resections is comparable between MIE and OE, as is the number of retrieved lymph nodes. Long-term survival seems to be comparable. A few single center trials suggest oncological advantages of MIE over OE concerning the number of lymph nodes, R0 resection rate, and 1-year survival.

Conclusion

Current evidence supports that MIE has advantages over OE in the short-term outcome. Oncological results are comparable to those achieved by OE. As a result, MIE has already been included in current guidelines for the treatment of esophageal cancer.

Mediastinoscopic esophagectomy for patients with early esophageal cancer

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to detect the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of mediastinoscopic esophagectomy for early esophageal cancer.

METHODS

The clinical data of 194 patients who underwent mediastinoscopic esophagectomy for early esophageal cancer in our center from December 2005 to October 2014 were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

All the surgery was performed successfully. The average duration of thoracic surgery was 48.2±7.8 min and the average intra-operative blood loss was 128.1±34.5 mL. An average of 3.1±1.6 lymph node stations were dissected, with an average number of dissected lymph nodes being 9.38±6.2, among which 4.2±5.4 were mediastinal lymph nodes. No peri-operative mortality was noted, and the rate of peri-operative morbidity was 13.4%. The median duration of follow-up was 39 [3-108] months, and the overall survival was 72.73%. The overall survival rates significantly differed among different T stages; more specifically, the 5-year survival was 95.23% in patients with stage T1a esophageal cancer, 70.15% for T1b, and 55.56% for T2 (P<0.001). The overall survival was significantly better in patients with negative lymph nodes than those with lymph nodes metastasis (P=0.003); more specifically, the 5-year survival rate was 84.9% for N0, 62.5% for N1, and 50.0% for N2 + N3.

CONCLUSIONS

The mediastinoscopic esophagectomy can achieve a similar effectiveness as the conventional thoracoscopic surgery for patients with early stage esophageal cancer.

Understanding Complete Pathologic Response in Oesophageal Cancer: Implications for Management and Survival

Despite significant improvement over recent decades, oesophageal cancer survival rates remain poor. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by oesophageal resection is mainstay of therapy for resectable oesophageal tumours. Operative morbidity and mortality associated with oesophagectomy remain high and complications arise in up to 60% of patients. Management strategies have moved towards definitive chemoradiotherapy for a number of tumour sites (head and neck, cervical, and rectal) particularly for squamous pathology. We undertook to perform a review of the current status of morbidity and mortality associated with oesophagectomy, grading systems determining pathologic response, and data from clinical trials managing patients with definitive chemoradiotherapy to inform a discussion on the topic.