Abdominothorakale Ösophagusresektion nach Ivor-Lewis mit intrathorakaler Anastomose

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

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

A comparison of short-term outcomes between Ivor-Lewis and McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Only few comparative studies have been reported on the outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with intrathoracic anastomosis (MIE Ivor-Lewis) and MIE with cervical anastomosis (MIE McKeown) for patients with mid and lower esophageal cancer. The objective of this study is to compare the safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes between two groups.

METHODS

Clinical and surgical data of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent either MIE Ivor-Lewis or MIE McKeown between January 2013 and October 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic characteristics, pathological data, operative procedures, and perioperative outcomes and survival in patients were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

Of the 72 patients included in this retrospective analysis, 32 underwent MIE Ivor-Lewis and 40 underwent MIE McKeown. Demographics, pathologic data, inpatient mortality, and surgical morbidity in both cohorts were almost identical. A significant difference was observed in Pulmonary complication (18.8% vs. 42.5%, P=0.032), Anastomotic leakage (9.4% vs. 30%, P=0.032), Anastomotic stenosis (12.5% vs. 35%, P=0.028), recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) injury (6.3% vs. 22.5%, P=0.034) between MIE Ivor-Lewis and MIE McKeown groups; however, no difference in operative time (312.6±82.0 vs. 339.4±80.0, P=0.249), blood loss (246.3±82.4 vs. 272.9±136.3, P=0.443), lymph nodes harvested (19.3±8.1 vs. 20.2±7.2, P=0.655) and 90-day mortality (3.1% vs. 5%, P=0.692) was observed between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The procedure of MIE Ivor-Lewis for esophageal cancer possesses advantages in perioperative outcomes and less complications compared with MIE McKeown.