Laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer

Laparoscopic-assisted transhiatal oesophagectomy: An experience from a tertiary care centre over 10 years

Background

Minimally invasive surgeries have become the standard of care in oesophageal surgeries, but the transhiatal approach is still not widely in practice. As in the open surgical approach, laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy has been accepted by many centres worldwide. The laparoscopic-assisted transhiatal oesophagectomy (LATE) has become a time-tested surgery. Many centres across the world have shown its feasibility and superiority regarding the lymph node yield with less morbidity with the added advantage of laparoscopy. We are pleased to share our 10-year experience with LATE and the long-term follow-up.

Materials and Methods

Retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained data from our tertiary care centre from January 2010 to January 2021. Forty-six out of 74 patients with carcinoma of the lower end of the oesophagus who underwent LATE were analysed retrospectively.

Results

Our study group included 46 patients. Six patients who required conversion to open surgery and those who underwent different procedures were excluded. The mean operative time was 220 (140-360) min. The mean blood loss was 230 (100-500) ml. Four (8.69%) patients had neck leaks. Twelve (26.08%) patients had minor pulmonary complications and one (2.17%) patient had a major pulmonary complication in the form of acute respiratory distress syndrome. The median hospital stay was 10.5 (8-28) days and 90-day mortality was 2.17%. 45 (97.82%) patients had an R0 resection rate with a median lymph node yield of 21 (16-28). The median overall survival was 44 months, with a 3 years disease-free survival rate of 63.04% and a 5-year overall survival rate of 36.50%.

Conclusion

LATE is feasible and safe for adenocarcinoma of lower third esophagus and GEJ (gastroesophageal junction). The laparoscopic magnified view of lower mediastinum provides a better vision for lymphadenectomy especially in the neoadjuvant group. It has all the added benefits of minimal invasive surgery with acceptable short and long term oncological results.

Is there a relationship between two different anesthetic methods and postoperative length of stay during radical resection of malignant esophageal tumors in China?: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Data providing a relationship between the anesthetic method and postoperative length of stay (PLOS) is limited. We aimed to investigate whether general anesthesia alone or combined with epidural anesthesia might affect perioperative risk factors and PLOS for patients undergoing radical resection of malignant esophageal tumors.

METHODS

The study retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 680 patients who underwent a radical esophageal malignant tumor resection in a Chinese hospital from January 01, 2010, to December 31, 2020. The primary outcome measure was PLOS, and the secondary outcome was perioperative risk-related parameters that affect PLOS. The independent variable was the type of anesthesia: general anesthesia (GA) or combined epidural-general anesthesia (E-GA). The dependent variable was PLOS. We conducted univariate and multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching to compare the relationships of GA and E-GA with PLOS and identify the perioperative risk factors for PLOS. In this cohort study, the confounders included sociodemographic data, preoperative chemotherapy, coexisting diseases, laboratory parameters, intraoperative variables, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

In all patients, the average PLOS was 19.85 ± 12.60 days. There was no significant difference in PLOS between the GA group and the E-GA group either before or after propensity score matching (20.01 days ± 14.90 days vs. 19.79 days ± 11.57 days, P = 0.094, 18.09 ± 9.71 days vs. 19.39 ± 10.75 days, P = 0.145). The significant risk factors for increased PLOS were lung infection (β = 3.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.54-5.52), anastomotic leakage (β = 25.73, 95% CI: 22.11-29.34), and surgical site infection (β = 9.39, 95% CI: 4.10-14.68) by multivariate regression analysis. Subgroup analysis revealed a stronger association between PLOS and vasoactive drug use, blood transfusions, and open esophagectomy. The results remained essentially the same (stable and reliable) after subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is no significant association between the type of anesthesia(GA or E-GA) and PLOS for patients undergoing radical esophageal malignant tumor resection, an association between PLOS and lung infection, anastomotic leakage, and surgical site infection was determined by multivariate regression analysis. A larger sample future study design may verify our results.

Barrett’s esophagus: Review of natural history and comparative efficacy of endoscopic and surgical therapies

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Progression to cancer typically occurs in a stepwise fashion through worsening dysplasia and ultimately, invasive neoplasia. Established EAC with deep involvement of the esophageal wall and/or metastatic disease is invariably associated with poor long-term survival rates. This guides the rationale of surveillance of Barrett’s in an attempt to treat lesions at an earlier, and potentially curative stage. The last two decades have seen a paradigm shift in management of Barrett’s with rapid expansion in the role of endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) for management of dysplastic and early neoplastic BE, and there have been substantial changes to international consensus guidelines for management of early BE based on evolving evidence. This review aims to assist the physician in the therapeutic decision-making process with patients by comprehensive review and summary of literature surrounding natural history of Barrett’s by histological stage, and the effectiveness of interventions in attenuating the risk posed by its natural history. Key findings were as follows. Non-dysplastic Barrett’s is associated with extremely low risk of progression, and interventions cannot be justified. The annual risk of cancer progression in low grade dysplasia is between 1%-3%; EET can be offered though evidence for its benefit remains confined to highly select settings. High-grade dysplasia progresses to cancer in 5%-10% per year; EET is similarly effective to and less morbid than surgery and should be routinely performed for this indication. Risk of nodal metastases in intramucosal cancer is 2%-4%, which is comparable to operative mortality rate, so EET is usually preferred. Submucosal cancer is associated with nodal metastases in 14%-41% hence surgery remains standard of care, except for select situations.

Laparoscopic Transhiatal Esophagectomy for Invasive Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy is a fundamental step to achieve long-term disease-free survival in esophageal cancer. While various approaches have been described, there is no consensus on the single best technique to optimize operative and oncologic outcomes. We aim to report the modern experience with laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy (LTHE) for invasive adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

We reviewed all patients who underwent LTHE with extended lymph node dissection for distal esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) at our institution between 2007 and 2016. Pre-operative characteristics, operative details, postoperative complications, and long-term outcomes were tracked by review of the electronic medical record and patient surveys. Survival rates were calculated with Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

Eighty-two EAC patients underwent LTHE during the study period (84% male, mean age 65, mean BMI 27.8, large). Most patients were clinical stage III (42.7%) and 68.3% had received neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT). Laparoscopy was successful in 93.9%, with five cases requiring conversion to open (6.1%). The median lymph node harvest was 19. Overall complication rate (major and minor) was 45.5% and ninety-day mortality was 4%. Overall 5-year survival was 52% (77% for stage 1, 57% for stage 2, 37% for stage 3).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy has an important role in current esophageal cancer treatment and can be performed with curative intent in patients with distal esophageal tumors. In addition to the well-known advantages of laparoscopy, the increased mediastinal visibility and a modern focus on oncologic principles seem to have a positive impact on cancer survival compared to the open transhiatal approach.

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) after minimally invasive and open esophagectomy

Esophagectomy for esophageal malignancies remains an operation with significant potential morbidity and mortality. However, surgical outcomes continue to improve over time and focus has shifted toward not just good outcomes, but quality of life post operatively. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) focus of quality of life measures via validated patient surveys has increasingly become a significant focus. While PROs do have their limitations, they represent a glimpse into the symptomatology, quality of life, and well-being of a patient undergoing a procedure with inherent morbidity. Working to improve outcomes from the perspective of the patient is not a new concept, but has becoming increasingly relevant as surgical quality for all procedures improves. The optimal approach to esophagectomy is controversial. Minimally invasive approaches attempt to avoid laparotomy and thoracotomy with the thought of improving post-operative quality of life by mitigating complications related to those open surgical approaches. The data in favor of laparoscopy and thoracoscopy is quite strong and multiple randomized controlled trials exist in this realm supporting minimally invasive approaches with regards to quality of life outcomes and more rapid return to patient’s preoperative baseline. The data in favor of a robotic approach for esophagectomy is not quite as robust, but more studies show that these approaches mirror the benefits of the laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approaches without robotic assistance.

Laparoscopic repair of a giant hiatal hernia after minimally invasive oesophagectomy

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy has become popular, but studies showed a higher rate of postoperative hiatus hernia compared with open oesophagectomy. Our video presents the laparoscopic biosynthetic mesh repair of a symptomatic giant hiatus hernia in a 71-year-old man who had undergone minimally invasive oesophagectomy one year earlier for distal adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus. The operative time was 120 minutes. The patient started oral intake on postoperative day one and was discharged on postoperative day three. Postoperative computed tomography at six months showed no signs of recurrence. In the setting of a symptomatic hiatus hernia post-minimally invasive oesophagectomy, we suggest an initial laparoscopic approach, because of its countless advantages.

Trans-hiatal repair for Oesophageal and Junctional perforation: a case series

Background

Oesophageal perforation is a life-threatening condition that requires urgent intervention. Surgical repair is recommended within 24 h of onset to minimise mortality risk, traditionally via an open thoracotomy or a laparotomy. Primary oesophageal repair via a laparoscopic trans-hiatal approach has been seldomly reported due to concerns of inadequate eradication of soilage in the mediastinum and pleural space, as well as poor access and an increased operative time in an unwell population.

Case presentation

We report a case series of 3 oesophageal and junctional perforations with varying presentations, demonstrating how the laparoscopic trans-hiatal approach can be used successfully to manage oesophageal perforations.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic trans-hiatal repair is an attractive option for oesophageal and junctional perforations, in haemodynamically stable surgical candidates, in the absence of gross contamination of the thoracic cavity.

Oncologic Resection in Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Transhiatal Esophagectomy

Background and Objectives:

As the use of robotic surgery continues to increase, little is known about robotic oncologic outcomes compared with traditional methods in esophagectomy. The aim of this study was to examine the perioperative oncologic outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic versus robot-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy (THE).

Methods:

Thirty-six consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic and robot-assisted THE for malignant disease over a 3-year period were identified in a retrospective database. Eighteen patients underwent robotic-assisted THE with cervical anastomosis, and 18 patients underwent laparoscopic THE. All procedures were performed by a single foregut and thoracic surgeon.

Results:

Patient demographics were similar between the 2 groups with no significant differences. Lymph node yields for both laparoscopic and robot-assisted THE were similar at 13.9 and 14.3, respectively (P = .90). Ninety-four percent of each group underwent R0 margins, but only 1 patient from each modality had microscopic positive margins. All of the robot-assisted patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation, whereas 83.3% underwent neoadjuvant therapy in the laparoscopy group (P = .23). Clinical and pathologic stagings were similar in each group. There was 1 death after laparoscopic surgery in a cirrhotic patient and no mortalities among the robot-assisted THE patients (P = .99). One patient from each group experienced an anastomotic leak, but neither patient required further intervention.

Conclusions:

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted THEs yield similar perioperative oncologic results including lymph node yield and margin status. In the transition from laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery should be considered oncologically noninferior compared with laparoscopy.

Laparoscopic Resection for Adenocarcinoma of the Stomach or Gastroesophageal Junction Improves Postoperative Outcomes: a Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive resection for upper gastrointestinal tumors has been associated with favorable results. However, the role of laparoscopic surgery (LS) in the multimodal treatment of patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction needs further investigation.

METHODS

Clinicopathological data of patients who underwent gastrectomy between 2005 and 2017 were assessed. Outcomes of patients undergoing LS were compared with those of patients treated with a conventional open resection (OR) using a 1:1 propensity score matching analysis.

RESULTS

Curative resection for adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction was performed in 417 patients during the study period. Beginning in June 2014, the majority of patients underwent LS (n = 72) and they were matched with 72 patients who were treated with an OR. The majority of patients treated with LS (89%) had advanced cancer (UICC stages II and III) and 82% of them received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. LS was significantly associated with a higher number of harvested lymph nodes (26 (9-62) vs. 21 (4-46), P = .007), a lower 90-day major complication rate (13 vs. 26%, P = .035), and a lower length of hospital stay (14 vs. 16 days, P = .001). After a median follow-up time of 32 months, 1-year overall survival rate was higher after LS than after OR (93 vs. 74%, P = .126); however, results did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

LS for adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction is feasible and significantly reduces major postoperative morbidity resulting in a reduced length of hospital stay. Therefore, LS should be preferably considered for the curative treatment of patients with these malignancies.

A minimally invasive approach for peritonectomy procedures and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in limited peritoneal carcinomatosis: The American Society of Peritoneal Surface Malignancies (ASPSM) multi-institution analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is playing an increasing role in the treatment of patients with gastrointestinal and gynaecological malignancies as the data show reduced morbidity, faster recovery and similar oncological outcome when compared to open procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The American Society of Peritoneal Surface Malignancies (ASPSM) conducted a retrospective study to analyse peritonectomy procedures and HIPEC done via the laparoscopic route. A database with standard clinical and pathological parameters was set up and distributed amongst ASPSM members. Rate of relapse, morbidity and mortality were the primary endpoints of the study.

RESULTS

A total of 90 patients from 7 centres around the world were identified. Sixty percent were female. Mean age was 50 years. Peritoneal carcinomatosis from appendiceal origin was the most common diagnosis in a 64.9% of patients and colon origin was diagnosed in 16.5% of patients. Mean peritoneal cancer index (PCI) was 4.1 (0-10). Forty-one percent of patients had a bowel resection. Mean operative time was 4.7 h (2.5-8). All patients had a complete cytoreduction and HIPEC. Grade 3 and 4 morbidity was 3.0 and 6.5%, respectively. The most common reason for re-operation was an internal hernia in 2 out of 5 cases. Operative mortality and re-admission rates were 0 and 5%, respectively. Mean hospital stay was 7.4 days (1-18). At a mean follow-up of 31.6 months, 15/90 patients have a disease relapse but loco-regional relapse was identified in only five patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of these data suggests that minimally invasive approach for peritonectomy procedures and HIPEC is feasible, safe and should be considered as part of the armamentarium for highly selected patients with peritoneal surface malignancies with limited tumour burden, defined as PCI of 10 or less and borderline tumours as low-grade pseudomyxoma and benign multicystic mesothelioma.

Is closed thoracic drainage tube necessary for minimally invasive thoracoscopic-esophagectomy?

Background

Closed thoracic drainage tube (CTDT) is a conventional treatment after esophagectomy, even after minimally invasive esophagectomy. Here, we report a single-center, retrospective study to explore the safety and necessity of CTDT after thoracoscopic-esophagectomy.

Methods

From October 2015 and August 2016, 50 patients were enrolled and underwent thoracoscopic-esophagectomy in semi-prone position by same surgical team. Perioperative demographic and surgical parameters, and patients' satisfaction with or without CTDT after thoracoscopic-esophagectomy were collected and analyzed.

Results

All eligible patients (18 patients without CTDT and 32 patients with CTDT) were successfully underwent thoracoscopic procedures without conversion to open approach or major intraoperative complications and perioperative death. The two groups, with similar demographic parameters, had no statistically difference in thoracic operation time, blood loss, ICU stay, postoperative mobilization and oral feeding, and hospital stay. Also, the incidence of postoperative complications was similar with or without CTDT after esophagectomy. But, no-CTDT group had better post-operative satisfaction, including less pain scale scoring and better Norton scoring.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that the treatment of no-CTDT after the minimally invasive thoracoscopic-esophagectomy is safe and feasible, might reduce the work intensity of medical stuff and lead to a better patients' experience.

Increased FDG uptake on late-treatment PET in non-tumour-affected oesophagus is prognostic for pathological complete response and disease recurrence in patients undergoing neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy

PURPOSE

Early side effects including oesophagitis are potential prognostic factors in patients undergoing radiochemotherapy (RCT) for locally advanced oesophageal cancer (LAEC). We assessed the prognostic value of ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake within irradiated non-tumour-affected oesophagus (NTO) during restaging positron emission tomography (PET) as a surrogate for inflammation/oesophagitis.

METHODS

This retrospective evaluation included 64 patients with LAEC who had completed neoadjuvant RCT and had successful oncological resection. All patients underwent FDG PET/CT before and after RCT. In the restaging PET scan maximum and mean standardized uptake values (SUV_max, SUV_mean) were determined in the tumour and NTO. Univariate Cox regression with respect to overall survival, local control, distant metastases and treatment failure was performed. Independence of clinically relevant parameters was tested in a multivariate Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Increased FDG uptake, measured in terms of SUV_mean in NTO during restaging was significantly associated with complete pathological remission (p = 0.002) and did not show a high correlation with FDG response of the tumour (rho < 0.3). In the univariate analysis, increased SUV_max and SUV_mean in NTO was associated with improved overall survival (p = 0.011, p = 0.004), better local control (p = 0.051, p = 0.044), a lower rate of treatment failure (p < 0.001 for both) and development of distant metastases (p = 0.012, p = 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, SUV_max and SUV_mean in NTO remained a significant prognostic factor for treatment failure (p < 0.001, p = 0.004) and distant metastases (p = 0.040, p = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

FDG uptake in irradiated normal tissues measured on restaging PET has significant prognostic value in patients undergoing neoadjuvant RCT for LAEC. This effect may potentially be of use in treatment personalization.