Effects of hybrid minimally invasive oesophagectomy on major postoperative pulmonary complications

Minimally invasive vs open vs hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal carcinoma has emerged as the contemporary alternative to conventional laparoscopic minimally invasive (LMIE), hybrid (HE) and open (OE) surgical approaches. No single study has compared all four approaches with a view to postoperative outcomes. A systematic search of electronic databases was undertaken. A network meta-analysis was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-network meta-analysis guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using R and Shiny. Seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 1063 patients were included. Overall, 32.9% of patients underwent OE (350/1063), 11.0% underwent HE (117/1063), 34.0% of patients underwent LMIE (361/1063), and 22.1% of patients underwent RAMIE (235/1063). OE had the lowest anastomotic leak rate 7.7% (27/350), while LMIE had the lowest pulmonary 10.8% (39/361), cardiac 0.56% (1/177) complications, re-intervention rates 5.08% (12/236), 90-day mortality 1.05% (2/191), and shortest length of hospital stay (mean 11.25 days). RAMIE displayed the lowest 30-day mortality rate at 0.80% (2/250). There was a significant increase in pulmonary complications for those undergoing OE (OR 3.63 [95% confidence interval: 1.4-9.77]) when compared to RAMIE. LMIE is a safe and feasible option for esophagectomy when compared to OE and HE. The upcoming RCTs will provide further data to make a more robust interrogation of the surgical outcomes following RAMIE compared to conventional open surgery to determine equipoise or superiority of each approach as the era of minimally invasive esophagectomy continues to evolve (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Registration: CRD42023438790).

Sex differences in survival following surgery for esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The impact of sex on the prognosis of patients with esophageal cancer remains unclear. Evidence supports that sex- based disparities in esophageal cancer survival could be attributed to sex- specific risk exposures, such as age at diagnosis, race, socioeconomic status, smoking, drinking, and histological type. The aim of our study is to investigate the role of sex disparities in survival of patients who underwent surgery for esophageal cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature in PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from December 1966 to February 2023, was held. Studies that reported sex-related differences in survival outcomes of patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer were identified. A total of 314 studies were included in the quantitative analysis. Statistically significant results derived from 1-year and 2-year overall survival pooled analysis with Relative Risk (RR) 0.93 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.90-0.97, I2 = 52.00) and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.85-0.95, I2 = 0.00), respectively (RR < 1 = favorable for men). In the postoperative complications analysis, statistically significant results concerned anastomotic leak and heart complications, RR: 1.08 (95% CI: 1.01-1.16) and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.52-0.75), respectively. Subgroup analysis was performed among studies with <200 and > 200 patients, histology types, study continent and publication year. Overall, sex tends to be an independent prognostic factor for esophageal carcinoma. However, unanimous results seem rather obscure when multivariable analysis and subgroup analysis occurred. More prospective studies and gender-specific protocols should be conducted to better understand the modifying role of sex in esophageal cancer prognosis.

Is Robotic Surgery the Future for Resectable Esophageal Cancer?: A Systematic Literature Review of Oncological and Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Radical esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer is a major surgical intervention, associated with considerable postoperative morbidity. The introduction of robotic surgical platforms in esophagectomy may enhance advantages of minimally invasive surgery enabled by laparoscopy and thoracoscopy, including reduced postoperative pain and pulmonary complications. This systematic review aims to assess the clinical and oncological benefits of robot-assisted esophagectomy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane databases was performed for studies published up to 1 August 2023. This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocols and was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022370983). Clinical and oncological outcomes data were extracted following full-text review of eligible studies.

RESULTS

A total of 113 studies (n = 14,701 patients, n = 2455 female) were included. The majority of the studies were retrospective in nature (n = 89, 79%), and cohort studies were the most common type of study design (n = 88, 79%). The median number of patients per study was 54. Sixty-three studies reported using a robotic surgical platform for both the abdominal and thoracic phases of the procedure. The weighted mean incidence of postoperative pneumonia was 11%, anastomotic leak 10%, total length of hospitalisation 15.2 days, and a resection margin clear of the tumour was achieved in 95% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

There are numerous reported advantages of robot-assisted surgery for resectable esophageal cancer. A correlation between procedural volume and improvements in outcomes with robotic esophagectomy has also been identified. Multicentre comparative clinical studies are essential to identify the true objective benefit on outcomes compared with conventional surgical approaches before robotic surgery is accepted as standard of practice.

Preoperative DLco and FEV1 are correlated with postoperative pulmonary complications in patients after esophagectomy

Limited information is available regarding the association between preoperative lung function and postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in patients with esophageal cancer who undergo esophagectomy. This is a retrospective cohort study. Patients were classified into low and high lung function groups by the cutoff of the lowest fifth quintile of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) %predicted (%pred) and diffusing capacity of the carbon monoxide (DLco) %pred. The PPCs compromised of atelectasis requiring bronchoscopic intervention, pneumonia, and acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome. Modified multivariable-adjusted Poisson regression model using robust error variances and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to assess the relative risk (RR) for the PPCs. A joint effect model considered FEV1%pred and DLco %pred together for the estimation of RR for the PPCs. Of 810 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy, 159 (19.6%) developed PPCs. The adjusted RR for PPCs in the low FEV1 group relative to high FEV1 group was 1.48 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.09-2.00) and 1.98 (95% CI = 1.46-2.68) in the low DLco group relative to the high DLco group. A joint effect model showed adjusted RR of PPCs was highest in patients with low DLco and low FEV1 followed by low DLco and high FEV1, high DLco and low FEV1, and high DLco and high FEV1 (Reference). Results were consistent with the IPTW. Reduced preoperative lung function (FEV1 and DLco) is associated with post-esophagectomy PPCs. The risk was further strengthened when both values decreased together.

Peak oxygen uptake in combination with ventilatory efficiency improve risk stratification in major abdominal surgery

This pilot study aimed to evaluate if peak VO2 and ventilatory efficiency in combination would improve preoperative risk stratification beyond only relying on peak VO2 . This was a single-center retrospective cohort study including all patients who underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) as part of preoperative risk evaluation before major upper abdominal surgery during years 2008-2021. The primary outcome was any major cardiopulmonary complication during hospitalization. Forty-nine patients had a preoperative CPET before decision to pursue to surgery (cancer in esophagus [n = 18], stomach [6], pancreas [16], or liver [9]). Twenty-five were selected for operation. Patients who suffered any major cardiopulmonary complication had lower ventilatory efficiency (i.e., higher VE/VCO2 slope, 37.3 vs. 29.7, p = 0.031) compared to those without complications. In patients with a low aerobic capacity (i.e., peak VO2  < 20 mL/kg/min) and a VE/VCO2 slope ≥ 39, 80% developed a major cardiopulmonary complication. In this pilot study of patients with preoperative CPET before major upper abdominal surgery, patients who experienced a major cardiopulmonary complication had significantly lower ventilatory efficiency compared to those who did not. A low aerobic capacity in combination with low ventilatory efficiency was associated with a very high risk (80%) of having a major cardiopulmonary complication.

Impact of neoadjuvant FLOT treatment of advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer following surgical therapy

Introduction

Therapeutic treatment for advanced-stage (T2–T4) gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) and gastric cancer involves neoadjuvant chemotherapy with subsequent surgical intervention.

Method

Neoadjuvant oncological treatment for GEJ and gastric cancer previously consisted of the intravenous administration of epirubicin, cisplatin and fluorouracil (ECF) or epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) combination (Group 1). The new protocol (FLOT, F: 5-FU, L: leucovorin, O: oxaliplatin, T: docetaxel), included patients with resectable GEJ and gastric cancer who had a clinical stage cT2 or higher nodal positive cN+ disease (Group 2). Between 31 December 2008 and 31 October 2022, the effect of different oncological protocols in terms of surgical outcomes in cases of T2–T4 tumours were retrospectively evaluated. Results of randomly assigned patients from the earlier ECF/ECX protocol (n = 36) (Group 1) and the new FLOT protocol (n = 52) (Group 2) were compared. Effect of different neoadjuvant therapies on tumour regression, types of possible side effects, type of surgery, and oncological radicality of surgical procedures were analysed.

Results

When comparing the two groups, we found that in case of the FLOT neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Group 2, n = 52), complete regression was achieved in 13.95% of patients, whereas in the case of ECF/ECX (Group 1, n = 36), complete regression occurred in only 9.10% of patients. Furthermore, in the FLOT group, the mean number of lymph nodes removed was slightly higher (24.69 vs. 20.13 in the ECF/ECX group). In terms of the safety resection margin (proximal), no significant difference was found between the two treatment groups. Nausea and vomiting were the most common side effects. The occurrence of diarrhea was significantly higher in the FLOT group (p = 0.006). Leukopenia and nausea occurred more commonly with the old protocol (Group 1). The rate of neutropenia was lower following FLOT treatment (p = 0.294), with the lack of grade II and III cases. Anaemia occured at a significantly higher rate (p = 0.036) after the ECF/ECX protocol.

Conclusions

As a result of the FLOT neoadjuvant oncological protocol for advanced gastro-esophageal junction and gastric cancer, the rate of complete tumour regression increased significantly. The rate of side effects was also appreciably lower following the FLOT protocol. These results strongly suggest a significant advantage of the FLOT neoadjuvant treatment used before surgery.

Clinical advantage of transmediastinal esophagectomy in terms of postoperative respiratory complications

BACKGROUND

Although the transmediastinal approach as a radical esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma patients has attracted attention, its advantages over the transthoracic approach remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of transmediastinal esophagectomy (TME) in terms of postoperative respiratory complications compared to that of open transthoracic esophagectomy (TTE).

METHODS

We reviewed patients with thoracic and abdominal esophageal carcinoma who underwent TME or TTE between February 2014 and November 2021. We compared postoperative respiratory complications as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included perioperative operation time, blood loss, postoperative complications, and the number of harvested mediastinal lymph nodes.

RESULTS

Overall, 60 and 54 patients underwent TME and TTE, respectively. The baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups, except for age and histological type. There were no intraoperative lethal complications in either group. The incidence of respiratory complications was significantly lower in the TME group than in the TTE group (6.7 vs. 22.2%, p = 0.03). The TME group had a shorter operation time (403 vs. 451 min, p < 0.01), less blood loss (107 vs. 253 mL, p < 0.01), and slightly higher anastomotic leakage (11.7 vs. 5.6%, p = 0.33). The number of harvested lymph nodes was similar in both groups (24 vs. 26, p = 0.10). Multivariate analysis revealed that TME is an independent factor in reducing respiratory complications (odds ratio = 0.27, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

TME for esophageal carcinoma was performed safely. TME was superior to TTE in terms of postoperative respiratory complications; however, the relatively higher frequency of anastomotic leakage should be considered and requires further evaluation.

Concomitant preoperative airflow obstruction confers worse prognosis after trans-thoracic surgery for esophageal cancer

Background

Airflow obstruction is a critical element of chronic airway diseases. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of preoperative airflow obstruction on the prognosis of patients following surgery for esophageal carcinoma.

Methods

A total of 821 esophageal cancer patients were included and classified into two groups based on whether or not they had preoperative airflow obstruction. Airflow obstruction was defined as a forced expiration volume in the first second (FEV₁)/forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio below the lower limit of normal (LLN). A retrospective analysis of the impact of airflow obstruction on the survival of patients with esophageal carcinoma undergoing esophagectomy was performed.

Results

Patients with airflow obstruction (102/821, 12.4%) had lower three-year overall (42/102, 58.8%) and progression-free survival rate (47/102, 53.9%) than those without airflow obstruction (P < 0.001). Multivariate analyses showed that airflow obstruction was an independent risk factor for overall survival (Hazard Ratio = 1.66; 95% CI: 1.17-2.35, P = 0.004) and disease progression (Hazard Ratio = 1.51; 95% CI: 1.1-2.08; P = 0.01). A subgroup analysis revealed that the above results were more significant in male patients, BMI < 23 kg/m² patients or late-stage cancer (stage III-IVA) (P = 0.001) patients and those undergoing open esophagectomy (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Preoperative airflow obstruction defined by FEV₁/FVC ratio below LLN was an independent risk factor for mortality in esophageal cancer patients after trans-thoracic esophagectomy. Comprehensive management of airflow obstruction and more personalized surgical decision-making are necessary to improve survival outcomes in esophageal cancer patients.

Perioperative statin medication impairs pulmonary outcome after abdomino-thoracic esophagectomy

Background

Although surgery is the curative option of choice for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, morbidity, especially the rate of pulmonary complications, and consequently mortality of patients undergoing abdomino-thoracic esophagectomy remain unacceptably high. Causes for developing post-esophagectomy pulmonary complications are trauma to the lung and thoracic cavity as well as systemic inflammatory response. Statins are known to influence inflammatory pathways, but whether perioperative statin medication impacts on inflammatory response and pulmonary complication development after esophagectomy had not been investigated, yet.

Methods

Retrospective analysis and propensity score matching of patients, who either received perioperative statin medication [statin( +)] or not [statin( −)], with regard to respiratory impairment (PaO₂/FiO₂ < 300 mmHg), pneumonia development, and inflammatory serum markers after abdomino-thoracic esophagectomy.

Results

Seventy-eight patients who underwent abdomino-thoracic esophagectomy for cancer were included into propensity score pair-matched analysis [statin( +): n = 26 and statin( −): n = 52]. Although no differences were seen in postoperative inflammatory serum markers, C-reactive protein values correlated significantly with the development of pneumonia beyond postoperative day 3 in statin( −) patients. This effect was attenuated under statin medication. No difference was seen in cumulative incidences of respiratory impairment; however, significantly higher rate (65.4% versus 38.5%, p = 0.0317, OR 3.022, 95% CI 1.165–7.892) and higher cumulative incidence (p = 0.0468) of postoperative pneumonia were seen in statin( +) patients, resulting in slightly longer postoperative stay on intensive care unit (p = 0.0612) as well as significantly prolonged postoperative in-hospital stay (p = 0.0185).

Conclusions

Development of pulmonary complications after abdomino-thoracic esophagectomy is multifactorial but frequent. The establishment of preventive measures into the perioperative clinical routine is mandatory for an improved patient outcome. Perioperative medication with statins might influence pneumonia development in the highly vulnerable lung after abdomino-thoracic esophagectomy. Perioperative interruption of statin medication might be beneficial in appropriate patients; however, further clinical trials and translational studies are needed to prove this hypothesis.

Minimally invasive surgical techniques for oesophageal cancer and nutritional recovery: a prospective population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To explore whether the minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIE) or hybrid minimally invasive oesophagectomy (HMIE) are associated with better nutritional status and less weight loss 1 year after surgery, compared with open oesophagectomy (OE).

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

All patients undergoing oesophagectomy for cancer in Sweden during 2013-2018.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 424 patients alive at 1 year after surgery were eligible, and 281 completed the 1-year assessment. Of these, 239 had complete clinical data and were included in the analysis.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was nutritional status at 1 year after surgery, assessed using the abbreviated Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment questionnaire. The secondary outcomes included postoperative weight loss at 6 months and 1 year after surgery.

RESULTS

Of the included patients, 78 underwent MIE, 74 HMIE while 87 patients underwent OE. The MIE group had the highest prevalence of malnutrition (42% vs 22% after HMIE vs 25% after OE), reduced food intake (63% vs 45% after HMIE vs 39% after OE), symptoms reducing food intake (60% vs 45% after HMIE vs 60% after OE) and abnormal activities/function (45% vs 32% after HMIE vs 43% after OE). After adjustment for confounders, MIE was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of reduced food intake 1 year after surgery (OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.47 to 5.61), compared with OE. Other outcomes were not statistically significantly different between the groups. No statistically significant associations were observed between surgical techniques and weight loss up to 1 year after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

MIE was statistically significantly associated with reduced food intake 1 year after surgery. However, no differences were observed in weight loss between the surgical techniques. Further studies on nutritional impact of surgical techniques in oesophageal cancer are needed.

Two-lung ventilation in video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy in prone position: A systematic review

Esophageal cancer surgery is still carrying a high risk of morbidity and mortality. That is why some anesthesia strategies have tried to reduce those postoperative complications. In this systematic review performed in accordance with the PRISMA-S guidelines (PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022310385)), we aimed to investigate the safety and advantages of two-lung ventilation (TLV) over one-lung ventilation (OLV) in minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in the prone position. Seven trials, with a total number of 1710 patients (765 patients with TLV versus 945 patients with OLV) were included. Postoperative mortality and morbidity rates were similar between TLV and OLV when realised for esophagectomy. Interestingly, we observed no difference in changes in intraoperative respiratory parameters, operative duration, thoraco-conversion rate, number of harvested lymph nodes, postoperative heart rate and respiratory rate between TLV and OLV. TLV brings better results in terms of intraoperative oxygen arterial pressure (PaO₂) during the thoracic time, postoperative oxygenation, PaO2 on inspired fraction of oxygen (FiO₂) ratio, duration of thoracic surgery, preoperative time, blood loss, temperature on postoperative day-1, and C-reactive protein dosage. Our study highlighted the safety of TLV for MIE in prone position when compared to OLV. Interestingly, we found better intra and postoperative ventilation parameters. The choice of ventilation modality did not influence clinical outcome after surgery and the quality of oncological resection. Large randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm these results.

Robotic-Assisted Esophagectomy Leads to Significant Reduction in Postoperative Acute Pain: A Retrospective Clinical Trial

Background

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) shows promising results regarding postoperative complications in patients with esophageal cancer. To date, no data are available regarding postoperative analgesic consumption. The aim of this work is to evaluate analgesic consumption after esophagectomy.

Methods

A total of 274 Ivor Lewis esophageal resections performed sequentially from January 2012 to December 2020 were evaluated. RAMIE cases (n = 51) were compared with the hybrid technique (laparoscopic abdominal phase followed by open thoracotomy, n = 59) and open abdominothoracic esophagectomy (OTE) (n = 164). Data were collected retrospectively. The primary endpoint was the overall postoperative morphine consumption, which represents a reliable indirect measurement of pain. Pain levels recorded on the first, third, and fifth postoperative days were assessed as secondary endpoints.

Results

A total of 274 patients were included. The postoperative opioid consumption rate for patients who underwent RAMIE (quartiles: 0.14, 0.23, 0.36 mg morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/kg body weight (bw)/day) was significantly lower than in the open group (0.19, 0.33, 0.58 mg MME/kg bw/day, p = 0.016). The overall postoperative opioid consumption for patients who underwent RAMIE was significantly lower (2.45, 3.63, 7.20 mg MME/kg bw/day; morphine milligram equivalents per kilogram body weight) compared with the open (4.85, 8.59, 14.63 MME/kg bw/day, p < 0.0001) and hybrid (4.13, 6.84, 11.36 MME/kg bw/day, p = 0.008) groups. Patients who underwent RAMIE reported lower pain scores compared with the open group on the fifth postoperative day, both at rest (p = 0.004) and while performing activities (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

This study shows that patients who underwent RAMIE experienced similar postoperative pain while requiring significantly lower amounts of opioids compared with patients who underwent open and hybrid surgery. Further studies are required to verify the results.

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.

Operative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy versus Open Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer

Background There is a recent rise in the incidence of esophageal carcinoma in India. Surgical resection with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiation is the current treatment modality of choice. Postoperative complications, especially pulmonary complications, affect many patients who undergo open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) could reduce the pulmonary complications and reduce the postoperative stay.

Methodology We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 114 patients with esophageal cancer in the department of surgical oncology at a tertiary cancer center in South India between January 2019 and March 2020. We included patients with resectable cancer of middle or lower third of the esophagus, and gastroesophageal junction tumors (Siewert I). MIE was performed in 27 patients and 78 patients underwent open esophagectomy (OE). The primary outcome measured was postoperative complications of Clavien–Dindo grade II or higher within 30 days. Other outcomes measured include overall mortality within 30 days, intraoperative complications, operative duration and the length of hospital stay.

Results A postoperative complication rate of 18.5% was noted in the MIE group, compared with 41% in the OE group ( p = 0.034). Pulmonary complications were noted in 7.4% in the MIE group compared to 25.6% in the OE group ( p = 0.044). Postoperative mortality rates, intraoperative complications, and other nonpulmonary postoperative complications were almost similar with MIE as with open esophagectomy. Although the median operative time was more in the MIE group (260 minutes vs. 180 minutes; p < 0.0001), the median length of hospital stay was shorter in patients undergoing MIE (9 days vs. 12 days; p = 0.0001).

Conclusions We found that MIE resulted in lower incidence of postoperative complications, especially pulmonary complications. Although, MIE was associated with prolonged operative duration, it resulted in shorter hospital stay.

Totally Robotic Esophagectomy

Totally robotic esophagectomy is performed using a robotic technique without additional thoracoscopy or laparoscopy. However, most robotic esophagectomies are currently performed in a hybrid form combining robotic and other endoscopic techniques. Laparoscopic stomach mobilization and thoracoscopic esophagogastric anastomosis are commonly used methods in robotic esophagectomy. In this paper, totally robotic esophagectomy without thoracoscopic or laparoscopic assistance is presented.

Health-related quality of life following total minimally invasive, hybrid minimally invasive or open oesophagectomy: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy has been shown to reduce the risk of pulmonary complications compared with open oesophagectomy, but the effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and oesophageal cancer survivorship remain unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the longitudinal effects of minimally invasive compared with open oesophagectomy for cancer on HRQoL.

METHODS

All patients who had surgery for oesophageal cancer in Sweden from January 2013 to April 2018 were identified. The exposure was total or hybrid minimally invasive oesophagectomy, compared with open surgery. The study outcome was HRQoL, evaluated by means of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaires QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OG25 at 1 and 2 years after surgery. Mean differences and 95 per cent confidence intervals were adjusted for confounders.

RESULTS

Of the 246 patients recruited, 153 underwent minimally invasive oesophagectomy, of which 75 were hybrid minimally invasive and 78 were total minimally invasive procedures. After adjustment for age, sex, Charlson Co-morbidity Index score, pathological tumour stage and neoadjuvant therapy, there were no clinically and statistically significant differences in overall or disease-specific HRQoL after oesophagectomy between hybrid minimally invasive and total minimally invasive surgical technique versus open surgery.

CONCLUSION

In this population-based nationwide Swedish study, longitudinal HRQoL after minimally invasive oesophagectomy was similar to that of the open surgical approach.

Minimally Invasive Versus open AbdominoThoracic Esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma (MIVATE) - study protocol for a randomized controlled trial DRKS00016773

BACKGROUND

The only curative treatment for most esophageal cancers is radical esophagectomy. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) aims to reduce postoperative morbidity, but is not yet widely established. Linear stapled anastomosis is a promising technique for MIE because it is quite feasible even without robotic assistance. The aim of the present study is to compare total MIE with linear stapled anastomosis to open esophagectomy (OE) with circular stapled anastomosis with special regard to postoperative morbidity in an expertise-based randomized controlled trial (RCT).

METHODS/DESIGN

This superiority RCT compares MIE with linear stapled anastomosis (intervention) to OE with circular stapled anastomosis (control) for Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. It was initiated in February 2019, and recruitment is expected to last for 3 years. For inclusion, patients must be 18 years of age or more with a resectable primary malignancy in the distal esophagus. Participants with tumor localizations above the azygos vein, metastasis, or infiltration into adjacent tissue will be excluded. In an expertise-based approach, the allocated treatment will only be carried out by the single most experienced surgeon of the surgical center for each respective technique. The sample size was calculated with 20 participants per group for the primary endpoint postoperative morbidity according to comprehensive complication index (CCI) within 30 postoperative days. Secondary endpoints include anastomotic insufficiency, pulmonary complications, other intra- and postoperative outcome parameters such as estimated blood loss, operative time, length of stay, short-term oncologic endpoints, adherence to a standardized fast-track protocol, postoperative pain, and postoperative recovery (QoR-15). Quality of life (SF-36, CAT EORTC QLQ-C30, CAT EORTC QLQ-OES18) and oncological outcomes are evaluated with 60 months follow-up.

DISCUSSION

MIVATE is the first RCT to compare OE with circular stapled anastomosis to total MIE with linear stapled anastomosis exclusively for intrathoracic anastomosis. The expertise-based approach limits bias due to heterogeneity of surgical expertise. The use of a dedicated fast-track protocol in both OE and MIE will shed light on the role of the access strategy alone in this setting. The findings of this study will serve to define which approach has the best perioperative outcome for patients requiring esophagectomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00016773 . Registered on 18 February 2019.

Ability of Laparoscopic Gastric Mobilization to Prevent Pulmonary Complications After Open Thoracotomy or Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy has a high risk of postoperative morbidity, and pulmonary complications are the most common causes of serious morbidity. Thoracoscopic esophagectomy has been reported to reduce postoperative pulmonary complications; however, it remains unclear whether laparoscopic gastric mobilization can reduce the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications after open thoracotomy or thoracoscopic esophagectomy. The present meta-analysis assessed the ability of laparoscopic gastric mobilization to prevent postoperative complications after open thoracotomy or thoracoscopic esophagectomy.

METHOD

Studies reported between January 2000 and April 2019 in the PubMed and the Cochrane Library databases that analyzed the impact of laparoscopy on postoperative complications were systematically reviewed. In the meta-analysis, data were pooled and the primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications. The secondary outcomes were other postoperative complications, operative details, length of hospital stay and postoperative mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies (1915 patients; 1 randomized trial, 1 prospective study and 11 observational studies) were included. Laparoscopic gastric mobilization after open thoracotomy resulted in significantly reduced postoperative pulmonary complications (OR = 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27-0.82, p = 0.008) and postoperative mortality (OR = 0.49, 95%CI: 0.25-0.94, p = 0.03). Similarly, laparoscopic gastric mobilization after thoracoscopic esophagectomy resulted in significantly reduced postoperative pulmonary complications (OR = 0.56, 95%CI: 0.37-0.84, p = 0.005) and anastomotic leakage (OR = 0.59, 95%CI: 0.39-0.91, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic gastric mobilization could be recommended for reducing postoperative pulmonary complications after esophagectomy irrespective of the thoracic approach.

Three-Dimensional vs Two-Dimensional Completely Minimally Invasive 2-Stage Esophagectomy With Intrathoracic Hand-Sewn Anastomosis for Esophageal Cancer: Comparison of Intra-and Postoperative Outcomes

Background. Completely minimally invasive esophagectomy (CMIE) has been associated with reduced morbidity compared to open esophagectomy in the treatment of esophageal cancer. Three-dimensional (3D) vision can enhance depth perception during minimally invasive surgery when compared to two-dimensional (2D) vision. We aimed to compare outcomes from 2-stage CMIEs when performed in 2D vs 3D. Method. All consecutive 2-stage CMIEs performed for esophageal or gastroesophageal junctional cancer at a single-centre between 2016 and 2018 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. All operations were completed in either 2D or 3D. All esophagogastric anastomoses were hand-sewn thoracoscopically. Intraoperative and postoperative clinical parameters were compared between 2D and 3D CMIE. Results. Overall, 98 patients underwent a 2-stage CMIE, of which 59 (60.2%) were in 2D and 39 (39.8%) in 3D. Median operative blood loss was less in the 3D group compared to the 2D group (283 mls vs 409 mls, P = .016). A higher number of lymph nodes were retrieved from 3D CMIE (30 vs 25, P = .010). The median duration of surgery was 407 minutes (interquartile ranges (IQR): 358-472 minutes) and 426 minutes (IQR: 369-509 minutes) when performed in 2D and 3D, respectively (P = .162). There were no significant intergroup differences in 30-day postoperative complications, short-term mortality, and hospital stay. Conclusion. We report reduced blood loss and higher lymph node yield when performing 3D CMIE than 2D CMIE. Other intraoperative and postoperative clinical outcomes were similar in both groups. A randomized controlled trial is needed to validate these findings of superior outcomes from CMIE performed in 3D over 2D.

Minimally invasive techniques for transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oesophagectomy is a demanding operation that can be performed by different approaches including open surgery or a combination of minimal access techniques. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of open, minimally invasive and robotic oesophagectomy techniques for oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting open oesophagectomy, laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO), thoracoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (TAO), totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) or robotic MIO (RAMIO) for oesophagectomy. A network meta-analysis of intraoperative (operating time, blood loss), postoperative (overall complications, anastomotic leaks, chyle leak, duration of hospital stay) and oncological (R0 resection, lymphadenectomy) outcomes, and survival was performed.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight studies involving 32 315 patients were included in the network meta-analysis (open 17 824, 55·2 per cent; LAO 1576, 4·9 per cent; TAO 2421 7·5 per cent; MIO 9558, 29·6 per cent; RAMIO 917, 2·8 per cent). Compared with open oesophagectomy, both MIO and RAMIO were associated with less blood loss, significantly lower rates of pulmonary complications, shorter duration of stay and higher lymph node yield. There were no significant differences between surgical techniques in surgical-site infections, chyle leak, and 30- and 90-day mortality. MIO and RAMIO had better 1- and 5-year survival rates respectively compared with open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive and robotic techniques for oesophagectomy are associated with reduced perioperative morbidity and duration of hospital stay, with no compromise of oncological outcomes but no improvement in perioperative mortality.

Hiatal hernia after oesophagectomy: a large European survey

OBJECTIVES

Hiatal hernias (HH) after oesophagectomy are rare, and their surgical management is not well standardized. Our goal was to report on the management of HH after oesophagectomy in high-volume tertiary European French-speaking centres.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective multicentre study among 19 European French-speaking departments of upper gastrointestinal and/or thoracic surgery. All patients scheduled or operated on for the repair of an HH after oesophagectomy were collected between 2000 and 2016. Demographics, details of the initial procedure, surgical management and long-term outcome were analysed.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine of 6608 (1.2%) patients who had oesophagectomies were included in the study. The postoesophagectomy diagnostic interval of an HH after oesophagectomy was ≤90 days (n = 17; 21%), 13 were emergency cases; between 91 days and 1 year, n = 21 (27%), 13 in emergency; ≥1 year, n = 41 (52%), 17 in emergency. The time to occurrence of HH after oesophagectomy was shorter after laparoscopy (median 308 days; interquartile range 150-693) compared to that after laparotomy (median 562 days, interquartile range 138-1768; P = 0.01). The incidence of HH after oesophagectomy was 0.73% (22/3010) after open surgery and 1.4% (26/1761) after laparoscopy (P = 0.03). Among the 79 patients, 78 were operated on: 35 had laparotomies (45%), 19 had laparoscopies (24%) and 24 (31%) had transthoracic approaches. Among the 43 urgent surgeries, 35 were open (25 laparotomies and 10 transthoracic approaches) and 8 were laparoscopies (conversion rate, 25%). Nine patients required bowel resections. Morbidity occurred in 36 (46%) patients with 1 postoperative death (1.2%). During the follow-up period, recurrent HH after oesophagectomy requiring revisional surgery developed in 8 (6 days-26 months) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical management of HH after oesophagectomy could be done by laparoscopy in patients with scheduled surgery but laparotomy or thoracotomy was preferred in urgent situations. The incidence of HH after oesophagectomy is higher and its onset earlier when laparoscopy is used at the initial oesophagectomy.

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.

Current Issues in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was first introduced in the 1990s. Currently, it is a widely accepted surgical approach for the treatment of esophageal cancer, as it is an oncologically sound procedure; its advantages when compared to open procedures, including reduction in postoperative complications, reduction in the length of hospital stay, and improvement in quality of life, are well documented. However, debates are still ongoing about the safety and efficacy of MIE. The present review focuses on some of the current issues related to conventional MIE and robot-assisted MIE based on evidence from the current literature.

Health-related Quality of Life Following Hybrid Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Patients With Esophageal Cancer, Analysis of a Multicenter, Open-label, Randomized Phase III Controlled Trial: The MIRO Trial

BACKGROUND

Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) has been shown to reduce major postoperative complications compared with open esophagectomy (OE) for esophageal cancer.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare short- and long-term health-related quality of life (HRQOL) following HMIE and OE within a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial at 13 study centers between 2009 and 2012. Patients aged 18 to 75 years with resectable cancers of the middle or lower third of the esophagus were randomized to undergo either transthoracic OE or HMIE. Patients were followed-up every 6 months for 3 years postoperatively and global health assessed with EORTC-QLQC30 and esophageal symptoms assessed with EORTC-OES18.

RESULTS

The short-term reduction in global HRQOL at 30 days specifically role functioning [-33.33 (HMIE) vs -46.3 (OE); P = 0.0407] and social functioning [-16.88 (HMIE) vs -35.74 (OE); P = 0.0003] was less substantial in the HMIE group. At 2 years, social functioning had improved following HMIE to beyond baseline (+5.37) but remained reduced in the OE group (-8.33) (P = 0.0303). At 2 years, increases in pain were similarly reduced in the HMIE compared with the OE group [+6.94 (HMIE) vs +14.05 (OE); P = 0.018]. Postoperative complications in multivariate analysis were associated with role functioning, pain, and dysphagia.

CONCLUSIONS

Esophagectomy has substantial effects upon short-term HRQOL. These effects for some specific parameters are, however, reduced with HMIE, with persistent differences up to 2 years, and maybe mediated by a reduction in postoperative complications.

Early Respiratory Impairment and Pneumonia after Hybrid Laparoscopically Assisted Esophagectomy-A Comparison with the Open Approach

Patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery are at high risk of developing severe pulmonary complications. Beneficial effects of minimally invasive esophagectomy had been discussed recently, but the incidence of perioperative respiratory impairment remains unclear. This is a retrospective single-center cohort study of patients, who underwent open (OE) or laparoscopically assisted, hybrid minimally invasive abdomino-thoracic esophagectomy (LAE) for cancer regarding respiratory impairment (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio (P/FR) < 300 mmHg) and pneumonia. No differences were observed in the cumulative incidence of reduced P/FR between OE and LAE patients. Of note, until postoperative day (POD) 2, P/FR did not differ among both groups. Thereafter, the rate of patients with respiratory impairment was higher after OE on POD 3, 5, and 10 (p ≤ 0.05) and tended being higher on POD 7 and 9 (p ≤ 0.1). Although the duration of LAE procedure was slightly longer (total: p = 0.07, thoracic part: p = 0.004), the duration of surgery (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (r_sp) = -0.267, p = 0.006), especially of laparotomy (r_sp = -0.242, p = 0.01) correlated inversely with respiratory impairment on POD 3 after OE. Pneumonia occurred on POD 5 (1-25) and 8.5 (3-14) after OE and LAE, respectively, with the highest incidence after OE (p = 0.01). In conclusion, respiratory impairment and pulmonary complications occur frequently after esophagectomy. Although early respiratory impairment is independent of the surgical approach, postoperative pneumonia rate is reduced after LAE.

Comparisons between minimally invasive and open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer with cervical anastomosis: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

As an extensive surgery, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has advantages in reducing morbidity and improving quality of life for patients suffering from esophageal cancer. This study aims to investigate differences between MIE and open esophagectomy (OE) for considerations of the safety of procedures, rate of tumor resection, postoperative complications, and quality of life. This paper also tends to provide some references for MIE on esophageal cancer therapy.

METHODS

A retrospective data analysis was undertaken on 140 patients who either underwent MIE or OE for esophageal cancer with cervical anastomosis from March 2013 to May 2014 by our surgical team. Preoperative characteristics were analyzed for both groups. Differences in perioperative and oncologic outcomes were compared in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, lymph nodes retrieved, and R0-resection rate. Accordingly, a comparative analysis was conducted on complications namely anastomotic leakage, pulmonary infection, in-hospital mortality, and short-term (3 months) postoperative EORTC C30 Global health as well.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients (87 with MIE and 53 with OE) were enrolled and the two groups were homogeneous in terms of patient- and tumor-related data. There was no difference on postoperative ICU stay (21.15 ± 1.54 h vs 21.75 ± 1.68 h, p = 0.07) and R0-resection rate (100% vs 100%, p = 1.00). The operation time for MIE was significantly shorter (146.08 ± 17.35 min vs 200.34 ± 14.51 min, p <  0.0001), the intraoperative blood loss was remarkably saved (MIE vs OE, 83.91 ± 24.72 ml vs 174.53 ± 35.32 ml, P <  0.0001) and more lymph nodes were retrieved (MIE vs OE, 38.89 ± 4.31 vs 18.42 ± 3.66, P <  0.0001). There was no difference between the groups to postoperative complications and mortality. However, pulmonary infection in MIE was higher than in OE and the difference was not statistically significant (MIE vs OE, 20.75% vs 31.03%, P = 0.24). Complications such as in-hospital mortality and short-term (3 months) postoperative EORTC C30 Global health displayed no difference between both groups as well.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of lymph nodes and intraoperative blood loss were significantly ameliorated in MIE. A 4-5 cm longitudinal incision below the xiphoid process was made to create the gastric conduit under direct vision assisting in shortening the total operation time significantly.

[Hybrid esophagectomy with intraoperative hyperspectral imaging : Video article]

The technique of hybrid esophagectomy with systematic 2‑field lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer showed a significant reduction in postoperative morbidity in a recently published prospective randomized study. This video publication presents the abdominothoracic hybrid procedure with (i) laparoscopic gastrolysis and ischemic conditioning of the stomach and (ii) 2-stage transthoracic esophagectomy with gastric pull-up, intrathoracic gastric tube formation and anastomosis. Intraoperative hyperspectral imaging (HSI) during the thoracic part of the operation is used for identification of the ideally perfused anastomotic region.

Effectiveness of Transthoracic Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Transthoracic hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) is frequently performed in patients with esophageal cancer. However, no conclusive benefit has been defined for HMIE compared with open esophagectomy (OE) or totally MIE (TMIE). The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of HMIE compared with OE and TMIE.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase (via OVID) and Cochrane databases were comprehensively searched for relevant studies up to January 2019. Studies comparing the efficacy of transthoracic HMIE with OE or TMIE were included in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine relevant studies comprising 3994 patients were identified and included in the analysis of HMIE vs OE. HMIE decreased the incidence of postoperative total morbidity (OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.80, p = 0.00), pneumonia (OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.66, p = 0.00), in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.83, p = 0.01), duration of hospitalization (SMD=-1.03, 95% CI -1.73 to -0.33, p = 0.00) and the estimated intraoperative blood loss (SMD=-1.01, 95% CI -1.62 to -0.40, p = 0.00) compared with OE. Twenty-one relevant studies comprising 3007 patients were identified and included in the analysis of HMIE vs TMIE. HMIE increased estimated intraoperative blood loss [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 1.02, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.58, p = 0.00] and the incidence of postoperative pneumonia (OR = 1.69, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.26, p = 0.00) compared with TMIE. No statistical differences were observed for other surgical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In our opinion, HMIE is a promising surgical technique. But further RCTs are still needed to confirm the advantages and disadvantages of HMIE mentioned above.

Efficacy of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy vs open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The first line treatment regimen for esophageal cancer is still surgical resection and the choice of surgical scheme depends on surgeon. Now the efficacy comparison of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) is still controversial.

AIM

To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of HMIE and OE in patients with esophageal cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for related articles. The odds ratio (OR) or standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to evaluate the effectiveness of HMIE and OE.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies including a total of 2397 patients were selected. HMIE was significantly associated with less blood loss (SMD = -0.43, 95%CI: -0.66, -0.20; P = 0.0002) and lower incidence of pulmonary complications (OR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.57, 0.90; P = 0.004). No significant differences were seen in the lymph node yield (SMD = 0.11, 95%CI: -0.08, 0.30; P = 0.26), operation time (SMD = 0.24, 95%CI: -0.14, 0.61; P = 0.22), total complications rate (OR = 0.68, 95%CI: 0.46, 0.99; P = 0.05), cardiac complication rate (OR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.62, 1.34; P = 0.64), anastomotic leak rate (OR = 0.95, 95%CI: 0.67, 1.35; P = 0.78), duration of intensive care unit stay (SMD = -0.01, 95%CI: -0.21, 0.19; P = 0.93), duration of hospital stay (SMD = -0.13, 95%CI: -0.28, 0.01; P = 0.08), and total mortality rates (OR = 0.70, 95%CI: 0.47, 1.06; P = 0.09) between the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the OE, HMIE shows less blood loss and pulmonary complications. However, further studies are necessary to evaluate the long-term oncologic outcomes of HMIE.

Using Benchmarking Standards to Evaluate Transition to Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is performed in nearly 50% of patients worldwide. The effectiveness of the technique arises from a single randomized control trial and multiple single series cohorts. Consistent reporting of complications is varied. We describe our experience of transitioning to MIE compared with open esophagectomy (OE) with the use of Esophageal Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) standardized complication benchmark definitions.

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2017, all patients undergoing esophagectomy were identified with the use of a prospectively curated database. Complications were defined by the ECCG and graded with the Clavien-Dindo (most severe complication) and comprehensive complication index (complexity of complications during hospital stay).

RESULTS

Of 383 patients, 299 (76%) were men with a median age of 64.5 years (range, 56-72 years). MIE was performed in 49.6%. No differences were found in age, histologic finding (P = .222), pT stage (P = .136), or nodal positivity (P = .918). Stage 3 cancers accounted for 42.0% of OEs and 47.9% of MIEs. A thoracic anastomosis was more frequent in MIEs (156 of 190; 82.1%) than in OEs (113 of 193; 58.5%; P = .001). Frequency, severity (Clavien-Dindo), and complexity (comprehensive complication index) of complications were better in the MIE group, without compromising operative outcomes. No differences were identified in individual complication groupings or grade in MIEs compared with OEs (pneumonia: 19.5% versus 26.9% ([P = .09]; intensive care unit readmission: 7.4% versus 9.3% [P = .519]; atrial fibrillation: 11.1% versus 6.7% [P = .082], or grade of leak [P = .99]).

CONCLUSIONS

These results compare favorably to those reported by ECCG. MIE can be the standard approach for surgical management of esophageal cancer. Introduction of the approach in each surgeon's practice should be benchmarked to international standards.

Ivor Lewis esophagectomy patients are particularly vulnerable to respiratory impairment - a comparison to major lung resection

Pulmonary complications and a poor clinical outcome are common in response to transthoracic esophagectomy, but their etiology is not well understood. Clinical observation suggests that patients undergoing pulmonary resection, a surgical intervention with similarities to the thoracic part of esophagectomy, fare much better, but this has not been investigated in detail. A retrospective single-center analysis of 181 consecutive patients after right-sided thoracotomy for either Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (n = 83) or major pulmonary resection (n = 98) was performed. An oxygenation index <300 mm Hg was used to indicate respiratory impairment. When starting surgery, respiratory impairment was seen more frequently in patients undergoing major pulmonary resection compared to esophagectomy patients (p = 0.009). On postoperative days one to ten, however, esophagectomy caused higher rates of respiratory impairment (p < 0.05) resulting in a higher cumulative incidence of postoperative respiratory impairment for patients after esophagectomy (p < 0.001). Accordingly, esophagectomy patients were characterized by longer ventilation times (p < 0.0001), intensive care unit and total postoperative hospital stays (both p < 0.0001). In conclusion, the postoperative clinical course including respiratory impairment after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy is significantly worse than that after major pulmonary resection. A detailed investigation of the underlying causes is required to improve the outcome of esophagectomy.

Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy-Surgical Technique and Results

BACKGROUND

Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) has been proven to be superior when compared with open esophagectomy, with a significant reduction of postoperative morbidity. In HMIE, the laparotomy is replaced by a minimally invasive laparoscopic approach. The radical mediastinal resection plus reconstruction is performed by a thoracic approach through a muscle-sparing thoracotomy. In this instructional article, we describe the surgical technique of HMIE in detail in order to facilitate possible adoption of the procedure by other surgeons. In addition, we give the monocentric results of our own practice.

METHODS

Between 2013 and 2018, HMIE was performed in 157 patients. The morbidity and mortality data of the procedure is shown in a retrospective monocentric analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 54% of patients had at least one perioperative complication. Anastomotic leak was evident in 1.9%, and a single patient had focal conduit necrosis of the gastric pull-up. Postoperative pulmonary morbidity was 31%. Pneumonia was found in 17%. The 90 day mortality was 2.5%. Wound infection rate was 3%, and delayed gastric emptying occurred in 17% of patients. In follow up, 12.7% presented with diaphragmatic herniation of the bowel, requiring laparoscopic hernia reduction and hiatal reconstruction and colopexy several months after surgery.

CONCLUSION

HMIE is a highly reliable technique, not only for the resection part but especially in terms of safety in reconstruction and anastomosis. For esophageal surgeons with experience in minimally invasive anti-reflux procedures and obesity surgery, HMIE is easy and fast to learn and adopt.

History of Esophagogastric Junction Cancer Treatment and Current Surgical Management in Western Countries

The incidence of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancer has been significantly increasing in Western countries. Appropriate planning for surgical therapy requires a reliable classification of EGJ cancers with respect to their exact location. Clinically, the most accepted classification of EGJ cancers is "adenocarcinoma of the EGJ" (AEG or "Siewert"), which divides tumor center localization into AEG type I (distal esophagus), AEG type II ("true junction"), and AEG type III (subcardial stomach). Treatment strategies in western countries routinely employ perioperative chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemoradiation for cases of locally advanced cancers. The standard surgical treatment strategies are esophagectomy for AEG type I and gastrectomy for AEG type III cancers. For "true junctional cancers," i.e., AEG type II, whether the extension of resection in the oral or aboral direction represents the most effective surgical therapy remains debatable. This article reviews the history of surgical EGJ cancer treatment and current surgical strategies from a Western perspective.

Minimally invasive and robotic surgery in the surgical treatment of esophagogastric junction cancer

Minimally invasive surgery provides for the treatment of esophagogastric junction tumors under safe conditions, reducing respiratory and abdominal wall complications. Recovery is improved, while maintaining the oncological principles of surgery to obtain an optimal long-term outcome. It is important to have a sufficient volume of activity to progress along the learning curve with close expert supervision in order to guarantee R0 resection and adequate lymphadenectomy. Minimal invasiveness ought not become an objective in itself. Should total gastrectomy be performed, the risk of a positive proximal margin makes intraoperative biopsy compulsory, without ruling out a primary open approach. Meanwhile, minimally invasive esophagectomy has been gaining ground. Its main difficulty, the intrathoracic anastomosis, can be safely carried out either with a mechanical side-to-side suture or a robot-assisted manual suture, thanks to the 3-D vision and versatility of the instruments.

Hybrid esophagectomy

Esophagectomy is a complex surgical procedure associated with high rates of mortality and morbidity, mainly dominated by pulmonary complications. Minimally invasive approaches have been developed in order to decrease postoperative morbidity, including totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and hybrid esophagectomy in which one surgical step is achieved either by laparoscopy or thoracoscopy and the other step by open approach. In this review, we will discuss the main results of this hybrid approach in esophagectomy for cancer. Hybrid esophagectomy is associated with better postoperative outcomes compared to open approach, and similar outcomes compared to totally MIE, especially concerning pulmonary complications. For long-terms outcomes, hybrid approach showed similar, or even better, overall survival than open approach. With a short learning curve, hybrid esophagectomy with laparoscopic gastric mobilization will be the future gold standard for esophagectomy and should be further compared with totally MIE.

Thoracoscopy in prone position with two-lung ventilation compared to conventional thoracotomy during Ivor Lewis procedure: a multicenter case-control study

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative management based on thoracoscopy, prone position and two-lung ventilation could decrease the rate of postoperative pulmonary complications after esophagectomy. The aim of this study was to compare this multifaceted approach (MIE-PP) and conventional thoracotomy for Ivor Lewis procedure after a systematic laparoscopic dissection.

METHODS

Data from 137 consecutive patients undergoing Ivor Lewis procedures between 2010 and 2017 at two tertiary centers was analyzed retrospectively. The outcomes of patients who underwent MIE-PP (n = 58; surgeons group 1) were compared with those of patients undergoing conventional approach (n = 79; surgeons group 2). Our primary outcome was major postoperative pulmonary complications. Our main secondary outcomes were anastomotic leak, quality of resection and mortality.

RESULTS

Female patients were more prevalent in the MIE-PP group (p = 0.002). Other patient characteristics, cTNM staging and neoadjuvant treatment rate were not different between groups. Major postoperative pulmonary complications were significantly lower in the MIE-PP group compared to Conventional group (24 vs. 44%; p = 0.014). Anastomotic leak occurred in 31 versus 18% in MIE-PP group and Conventional groups, respectively (p = 0.103). Complete resection rate (98 vs. 95%; p = 0.303) and mean number of harvested lymph nodes (16 (4-40) vs. 18 (3-37); p = 0.072) were similar between the two groups. Postoperative mortality rates were 0 versus 2% at day 30 (p = 0.508) and 0 versus 7.6% at day 90 (p = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

Short-term outcomes of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis using thoracoscopy, prone position and two-lung ventilation are at least equivalent to the hybrid approach. Anastomotic leak after MIE-PP remains a major concern.

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus the conventional minimally invasive one: A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Conventional video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is safe and associated with low rates of morbidity and mortality, but the two-dimensional monitor reduces eye-hand harmony and viewing yield. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) with its virtual reality simulators offers a realistic three-dimensional environment that facilitates dissection in the narrow working space, but it is expensive and requires longer operative time. Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the safety and feasibility of RAMIE versus MIE in patients with esophageal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Chinese Biomedical Literature databases were systematically searched up to 21 September 2018 for case-controlled studies that compared RAMIE with MIE.

RESULT

Eight case-controlled studies involving 1862 patients (931 under RAMIE and 931 under MIE) were considered. No statistically significant difference between the two techniques was observed regarding R0 resection rate (OR = 1.1174, P = 0.8647), conversion to open (OR = 0.7095, P = 0.7519), 30-day mortality rate (OR = 0.8341, P = 0.7696), 90-day mortality rate (OR = 0.3224, P = 0.3329), in-hospital mortality rate (OR = 0.3733, P = 0.3895), postoperative complications, number of harvested lymph nodes (mean difference [MD] = 0.8216, P = 0.2039), operation time (MD = 24.3655 min, P = 0.2402), and length of stay in hospitals (LOS) (MD = -5.0228 day, P = 0.1342). The meta-analysis showed that RAMIE was associated with a significantly fewer estimated blood loss (EBL) (MD = -33.2268 mL, P = 0.0075). And the vocal cord palsy rate was higher in the MIE group compared with RAMIE, and the difference was significant (OR = 0.5696, P = 0.0447).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis indicated that RAMIE and MIE display similar feasibility and safety when used in esophagectomy. However, randomized controlled studies with larger sample sizes are needed to evaluate the benefit and harm in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing RAMIE.

Safe Introduction of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy at a Medium Volume Center

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is a favored alternative in high-volume centers. We evaluated the introduction of, and transition to, minimally invasive esophagectomy at a medium volume tertiary referral center (10-20 esophagectomies annually) with focus on surgical results.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy or open transthoracic surgery for carcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction (Siewert I and II) during 2007-2016 were retrospectively studied. Sorted on surgical approach, perioperative data, surgical outcomes, and postoperative complications were analyzed and multivariate regression models were used to adjust for possible confounders.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixteen patients were included, 51 minimally invasive esophagectomy (21 hybrid and 30 totally minimally invasive) and 65 open resections. The groups were well matched. However, higher body mass index, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and cervical anastomosis were more frequent in the minimally invasive esophagectomy group. Minimally invasive esophagectomy was associated with less peroperative bleeding (384 vs 607 mL, p = 0.036) and reduced length of stay (14 vs 15 days, p = 0.042). Duration of surgery, radical resection rate, and postoperative complications did not differ between groups. Lymph node yield was higher in the minimally invasive esophagectomy group, 18 (13-23) vs 12 (8-16), p < 0.001, confirmed in a multivariate regression model (adjusted odds ratio 3.15, 95% class interval 1.11-8.98, p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

The introduction of minimally invasive esophagectomy at a medium volume tertiary referral center resulted in superior lymph node yield, less peroperative blood loss and shorter length of stay, without compromising the rate of radical resection, or increasing the complication rate.

Amiodarone for prevention of atrial fibrillation following esophagectomy

OBJECTIVES

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common complication after esophagectomy and is associated with symptoms, hemodynamic instability, prolonged hospital stay, and an increased incidence of mortality. Our objective was to determine the efficacy and safety of intravenous amiodarone for prophylaxis of postesophagectomy AF.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, 309 patients who underwent esophagectomy formed the initial cohort. Following propensity score-matching, 110 patients who received prophylactic amiodarone 43.75 mg/hour via continuous intravenous infusion over 96 hours (total dose, 4200 mg) were matched to a control group of patients who did not undergo amiodarone prophylaxis (n = 110). The propensity score was obtained using a multivariate logistic regression model with amiodarone as the variable and the following covariates: age, sex, surgical approach, history of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, cardiovascular disease, alcohol use (>7 drinks/week), preadmission β-blockers discontinued during hospitalization, preoperative use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, preoperative use of corticosteroids, postoperative use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, postoperative use of corticosteroids, postoperative use of statins, and preoperative Charlson comorbidity index.

RESULTS

The incidence of AF requiring treatment due to rapid ventricular rate and symptoms was lower in the amiodarone group (17 out of 110 [15.5%] vs 32 out of 110 [29.1%]; odds ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.86; P = .015). There were no significant differences between the groups in median postoperative length of hospital stay, incidence of pulmonary complications, or mortality. The incidences of hypotension requiring treatment (42.7% vs 21.8%; P = .001), bradycardia (8.2% vs 0.0%; P = .002), and corrected QT interval prolongation (10.9% vs 0.0%; P ≤ .0001) were significantly higher in the amiodarone group.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic intravenous amiodarone is associated with a reduction in the incidence of AF following esophagectomy, but is not associated with shorter postoperative length of hospital stay. Intravenous amiodarone for prophylaxis of postesophagectomy AF is associated with hypotension, bradycardia, and corrected QT interval prolongation.

Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Postoperative complications, especially pulmonary complications, affect more than half the patients who undergo open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy results in lower morbidity than open esophagectomy is unclear.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial involving patients 18 to 75 years of age with resectable cancer of the middle or lower third of the esophagus. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo transthoracic open esophagectomy (open procedure) or hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (hybrid procedure). Surgical quality assurance was implemented by the credentialing of surgeons, standardization of technique, and monitoring of performance. Hybrid surgery comprised a two-field abdominal-thoracic operation (also called an Ivor-Lewis procedure) with laparoscopic gastric mobilization and open right thoracotomy. The primary end point was intraoperative or postoperative complication of grade II or higher according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (indicating major complication leading to intervention) within 30 days. Analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

From October 2009 through April 2012, we randomly assigned 103 patients to the hybrid-procedure group and 104 to the open-procedure group. A total of 312 serious adverse events were recorded in 110 patients. A total of 37 patients (36%) in the hybrid-procedure group had a major intraoperative or postoperative complication, as compared with 67 (64%) in the open-procedure group (odds ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.55; P<0.001). A total of 18 of 102 patients (18%) in the hybrid-procedure group had a major pulmonary complication, as compared with 31 of 103 (30%) in the open-procedure group. At 3 years, overall survival was 67% (95% CI, 57 to 75) in the hybrid-procedure group, as compared with 55% (95% CI, 45 to 64) in the open-procedure group; disease-free survival was 57% (95% CI, 47 to 66) and 48% (95% CI, 38 to 57), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy resulted in a lower incidence of intraoperative and postoperative major complications, specifically pulmonary complications, than open esophagectomy, without compromising overall and disease-free survival over a period of 3 years. (Funded by the French National Cancer Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00937456 .).

Minimally invasive esophagectomy for Barrett's adenocarcinoma

Minimally invasive esophagectomy has become the preferred approach for invasive Barrett's adenocarcinoma because it can speed recovery and enhance patient's quality of life. Multiple minimally invasive surgical techniques have been described during the last two decades. Preoperative staging, anatomy and physiological patient's status, comorbidity, and experience of the surgical team should drive the choice of the surgical approach. The trans-thoracic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, either hybrid or totally minimal invasive, remains the preferred approach in these patients. Lymph node yield and short-term clinical outcomes have proven similar to open surgery, while quality of life appears improved. To establish a minimally invasive esophagectomy program, a steep learning curve and a multidisciplinary approach are required in order to provide optimal staging, personalized therapy, and adequate perioperative care. The role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of invasive Barrett's adenocarcinoma will continue to expand in synergy with enhanced recovery after surgery pathways.