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

Efficacy of modified thoraco-laparoscopic Ivor-Lewis versus traditional thoraco-laparoscopic Ivor-Lewis for esophageal cancer: Propensity score-matched analysis

Objective

To compare the clinical results of the modified Ivor-Lewis procedure, which preserves the azygous vein, thoracic duct and surrounding tissues, with the traditional Ivor-Lewis procedure, which removes these tissues, for treating esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and evaluating whether the azygous vein, thoracic duct and surrounding tissues are required to be removed for the surgery of esophageal cancer.

Methods

To retrospectively analyze the clinical data of patients suffering from esophageal cancer treated by thoracic-laparoscopic Ivor-Lewis procedure admitted to the Department of Thoracic Surgery of Gansu Provincial People's Hospital from September 2017 to September 2019. According to the surgical method, they were divided into the modified thoracolaparoscopic Ivor-Lewis (modified group) and the traditional thoracolaparoscopic Ivor-Lewis (traditional group). Propensity score matching analysis (PSM) was applied to reduce the selection bias of confounding factors.

Results

A total of 245 patients who suffered from esophageal cancer and underwent thoracic-laparoscopic Ivor-Lewis were enrolled in the study. There were 124 cases in the modified group and 121 cases in the traditional group. The discrepancies in the age and T-stage among patients in the traditional and modified groups were statistically significant. After PSM, the above-mentioned factors became statistically insignificant. There were 86 patients in each group after PSM. Compared with the traditional group, the modified group has shorter operative time (p=0.007), less intraoperative bleeding (p=0.003) and less postoperative 3 days chest drainage(p=0.001), with a statistically significant difference. No significant difference in local recurrence (p=0.721) and distant metastasis (p=0.742) after surgery were found in the two groups, and the difference was not statistically significant. There was also no statistically significant difference in the 3-year postoperative survival rate (44.2% vs. 41.9%, p=0.605) between the modified and traditional groups.

Conclusion

The modified Ivor-Lewis procedure, which preserves the azygous vein, thoracic duct, and surrounding tissue, reduces surgical trauma in esophageal cancer, has not increased postoperative recurrent metastases, while achieved the same long-term outcomes as expanded surgery.

Transthoracic Esophagectomy: Hand-sewn Versus Side-to-side Linear-stapled Versus Circular-stapled Anastomosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Three anastomotic techniques are mostly used to create an esophagogastric anastomosis in a transthoracic esophagectomy: hand-sewn (HS), side-to-side linear-stapled (SSLS), and circular-stapled (CS). The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcomes after HS, SSLS, and CS intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review using the MEDLINE database was performed to identify original articles analyzing outcomes after HS, SSLS, and CS esophagogastric anastomosis. The main outcome was an anastomotic leakage rate. Secondary outcomes included overall morbidity, major morbidity, and mortality. A meta-analysis of proportions and linear regression models were used to assess the effect of each anastomotic technique on the different outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 101 studies comprising 12,595 patients were included; 8835 (70.1%) with CS, 2532 (20.1%) with HS, and 1228 (9.8%) with SSLS anastomosis. Anastomotic leak occurred in 10% [95% confidence interval (CI), 6%-15%], 9% (95% CI, 6%-13%), and 6% (95% CI, 5%-7%) of patients after HS, SSLS, and CS anastomosis, respectively. Risk of anastomotic leakage was significantly higher with HS anastomosis (odds ratio=1.73, 95% CI: 1.47-2.03, P<0.0001) and SSLS (odds ratio=1.68, 95% CI: 1.36-2.08, P<0.0001), as compared with CS. Overall morbidity (HS: 52% vs. SLSS: 39% vs. CS: 35%) and major morbidity (HS: 33% vs. CS: 19%) rates were significantly lower with CS anastomosis. Mortality rate was 4% (95% CI, 3%-6%), 2% (95% CI, 2%-3%), and 3% (95% CI, 3%-4%) after HS, SSLS, and CS anastomosis, respectively.

CONCLUSION

HS and SSLS intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomoses are associated with significantly higher rates of an anastomotic leak than CS anastomosis.

Long-term outcomes after robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy

Robotic assistance has gained acceptance in thoracic procedures, including esophagectomy. There is a paucity of data regarding long-term outcomes for robotic esophagectomy. We previously reported our initial series of robot-assisted Ivor Lewis (RAIL) esophagectomy. We report long-term outcomes to assess the efficacy of the procedure. We performed a retrospective review of 112 consecutive patients who underwent a RAIL. Patient demographics, diagnosis, pathology, operative characteristics, post-operative complications, and long-term outcomes were documented. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed for all the variables. Primary endpoints were mortality and disease-free survival. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Of the 112 patients, 106 had a diagnosis of cancer, with adenocarcinoma the dominant histology (87.5%). Of these 106 patients, 81 (76.4%) received neo-adjuvant chemoradiation. The 30-, 60-, and 90-day mortality was 1 (0.9%), 3 (2.7%), and 4 (3.6%), respectively. There were 9 anastomotic leaks (8%) and 18 (16.1%) patients had a stricture requiring dilation. All-patient OS at 1, 3, and 5 years was 81.4%, 60.5%, and 51.0%, respectively. For cancer patients, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS was 81.3%, 59.2%, and 49.4%, respectively, and the DFS was 75.3%, 42.3%, and 44.0%. We have shown that long-term outcomes after RAIL esophagectomy are similar to other non-robotic esophagectomies. Given the potential advantages of robotic assistance, our results are crucial to demonstrate that RAIL does not result in inferior outcomes.

Esophagectomy from then to now

We have come a long way from the onset of surgery for esophageal cancer. Surgical resection is pivotal for the long-term survival in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. Moreover, advancements in post-operative care and surgical techniques have contributed to reductions in morbidity. More recently minimally invasive esophagectomy has been increasingly used in patients undergoing esophageal cancer resection. Potential advantages of MIE include: the decreased pulmonary complications, lower post-operative wound infection, decreased post-operative pain, and decreased length of hospitalization. The application of robotics to esophageal surgery is becoming more widespread. Robotic esophageal surgery has potential advantages over the known limitations of laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approaches to esophagectomy while adhering to the benefits of the minimally invasive approach. This paper is a review of the evolution from open esophagectomy to the most recent robotic approach.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by minimally invasive esophagectomy: is it a superior approach for locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma?

Background

Few studies reported the outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in treating patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). The aim of the study was to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of nCRT plus MIE (RM) strategy in treating locally advanced resectable ESCC.

Methods

This retrospective study included 175 patients with ESCC undergoing surgical resection after neoadjuvant therapy in our institution from 2010 to 2016. Patients were stratified into three groups: RM, [neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) plus MIE] (CM) and [nCT plus open esophagectomy (OE)] (CO).

Results

Seventy-six (43.4%), 42 (24%) and 57 (32.6%) patients received RM, CM and CO approach, respectively. Compared with CO approach, RM or CM approach had shorter operation duration (188±39, 185±37 vs. 209±45 minutes, P=0.004, P=0.009) and less blood loss (124±88, 122±79 vs. 166±92 mL, P=0.001, P=0.003). There was a trend with lower risk of postoperative non-surgical complications in RM and CM approach [odds ratio (OR) 0.45, 0.200-1.040; P=0.062; OR 0.41, 0.150-1.160; P=0.093]. There were no differences in 30- and 90-day mortality among all groups. RM approach was more likely to achieve pathological complete regression (27.6% vs. 4.8%, 1.8%, P=0.001, P=0.001) and fewer lymph node metastasis (25.0% vs. 57.1%, 61.4%, P=0.001, P=0.001) than CM or CO approach. Survival analysis revealed a potential trend towards improved overall survival in RM approach compared with CM or CO approach (P=0.098, P=0.166).

Conclusions

RM approach was a safe and efficient strategy in treating locally advanced resectable ESCC.

Comparison of perioperative outcomes following hybrid minimally invasive versus open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of various minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) procedures for esophageal cancer have been reported; however, those of the hybrid approach are lacking. This study aimed to assess the impacts of hybrid minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (HIL, laparoscopy and right thoracotomy) for esophageal cancer on perioperative outcomes compared with the open approach.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 153 patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for squamous cell carcinoma between January 2008 and December 2016. Patients who received neoadjuvant treatment prior to surgery (n=22) and underwent complete minimally invasive procedures (n=16) were excluded. Clinical characteristics and perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent HIL (n=53) were compared with findings in patients who underwent open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (OIL, n=62).

RESULTS

There were 112 men (97.4%) and 3 women (2.6%) with a median age of 66 years (range, 45-83 years). The HIL and OIL groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, preoperative pulmonary function, location of the tumor, and preoperative laboratory findings. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding surgical data, except for pyloric management. Postoperative complications occurred in 17 (32.1%) and 23 (37.1%) patients in the HIL and OIL groups, respectively (P=0.573); in-hospital mortality rates were 3.8% and 8.1%, respectively (P=0.337). HIL group patients had higher albumin (3.3 vs. 2.9 g/dL; P<0.001) and lower C-reactive protein (6.4 vs. 8.1 mg/L; P<0.001) postoperatively. The length of hospital stay was shorter in the HIL group (13.5 vs. 19.2 days; P=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the conventional open approach, HIL for esophageal cancer showed better postoperative nutritional and inflammatory status, resulting in shorter hospital stays. However, further studies are required to evaluate the long-term oncologic outcomes of this hybrid approach.