Quality of Life and Late Complications After Minimally Invasive Compared to Open Esophagectomy: Results of a Randomized Trial. World J Surg. 2015;39:1986-1993. [PMID: 26037024 PMCID: PMC4496501 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-015-3100-y]

Association of hospital volume and operative approach with clinical and financial outcomes of elective esophagectomy in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Literature regarding the impact of esophagectomy approach on hospitalizations costs and short-term outcomes is limited. Moreover, few have examined how institutional MIS experience affects costs. We thus examined utilization trends, costs, and short-term outcomes of open and minimally invasive (MIS) esophagectomy as well as assessing the relationship between institutional MIS volume and hospitalization costs.

METHODS

All adults undergoing elective esophagectomy were identified from the 2016-2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Multiple regression models were used to assess approach with costs, in-hospital mortality, and major complications. Additionally, annual hospital MIS esophagectomy volume was modeled as a restricted cubic spline against costs. Institutions performing > 16 cases/year corresponding with the inflection point were categorized as high-volume hospitals (HVH). We subsequently examined the association of HVH status with costs, in-hospital mortality, and major complications in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy.

RESULTS

Of an estimated 29,116 patients meeting inclusion, 10,876 (37.4%) underwent MIS esophagectomy. MIS approaches were associated with $10,600 in increased incremental costs (95% CI 8,800-12,500), but lower odds of in-hospital mortality (AOR 0.76; 95% CI 0.61-0.96) or major complications (AOR 0.68; 95% CI 0.60, 0.77). Moreover, HVH status was associated with decreased adjusted costs, as well as lower odds of postoperative complications for patients undergoing MIS operations.

CONCLUSION

In this nationwide study, MIS esophagectomy was associated with increased hospitalization costs, but improved short-term outcomes. In MIS operations, cost differences were mitigated by volume, as HVH status was linked with decreased costs in the setting of decreased odds of complications. Centralization of care to HVH centers should be considered as MIS approaches are increasingly utilized.

Anterior gastric wall anastomosis may lead to lower rate of delayed gastric emptying after minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

In minimally invasive esophagectomy, a circular stapled anastomosis is common, but no evidence exists investigating the role of the specific localization of the anastomosis. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of an esophagogastrostomy on the anterior or posterior wall of the gastric conduit on the postoperative outcomes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All oncologic minimally invasive Ivor Lewis procedures, performed between 2017 and 2022, were included in this study. The cohort was divided in two groups: a) intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy on the anterior gastric wall of the conduit (ANT, n = 285, 65%) and b) on the posterior gastric wall (POST, n = 154, 35%). Clinicopathological parameters and short-term outcomes were compared between both groups by retrieving data from the prospective database.

RESULTS

Overall, 439 patients were included, baseline characteristics were similar in both groups, there was a higher proportion of squamous cell carcinoma in ANT (22.8% vs. 16.2%, P = 0.043). A higher rate of robotic-assisted procedures was observed in ANT (71.2% vs. 49.4%). Anastomotic leakage rate was similar in both groups (ANT 10.4% vs. POST 9.8%, P = 0.851). Overall complication rate and Clavien-Dindo > 3 complication rates were higher in POST compared to ANT: 53.2% vs. 40% (P = 0.008) and 36.9% vs. 25.7% (P = 0.014), respectively. The rate of delayed gastric emptying (20.1% vs. 7.4%, P < 0.001) and nosocomial pneumonia (22.1% vs. 14.8%, P = 0.05) was significantly higher in POST.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with an intrathoracic circular stapled anastomosis may benefit from esophagogastrostomy on the anterior wall of the gastric conduit, in terms of lower rate of delayed gastric emptying.

Comparisons of short-term outcomes between robot-assisted, video-assisted, and open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment: a retrospective study

Background

Robot-assisted esophagectomy (RAE), video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE), and open esophagectomy (OE) all have significant roles in the management of esophageal cancer (EC). Few studies have compared efficacy and safety between RAE, VAMIE, and OE for resectable EC after neoadjuvant treatment. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the short-term outcomes between RAE, VAMIE, and OE for resectable EC after neoadjuvant treatment.

Methods

Ninety-eight patients were consecutively enrolled who underwent esophagectomy. A retrospective study was performed including 98 consecutive patients treated from January 2021 to August 2022 who received neoadjuvant treatment (including immunochemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy) followed by RAE, VAMIE or OE. Evaluated endpoints in the present study consisted of pathological outcomes, intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, as well as postoperative complications.

Results

No significant differences were seen in the operating time, blood loss, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, R0 resection, and number of dissected lymph nodes between the three RAE, VAMIE, or OE groups. The achievement rate of right recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) lymph node removal (P=0.01) and the total cost (P<0.001) were higher in RAE. The postoperative hospital stay of OE was longer than the other two groups (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in postoperative complications.

Conclusions

Compared to VAMIE, no clear benefit exists for RAE in the treatment of resectable EC after neoadjuvant therapy. OE resulted in a longer hospital stay. Although the rate of successful right RLN node removal was higher with RAE, the clinical relevance for this is yet unclear.

Fashioning esophagogastric anastomosis in robotic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy: a multicenter experience

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study is to compare outcomes of the robotic hand-sewn, linear- and circular-stapled techniques performed to create an intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis in patients who underwent Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.

METHODS

Patients who underwent a planned Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy were retrospectively analysed from prospectively maintained databases. Only patients who underwent a robotic thoracic approach with the creation of an intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis were included in the study. Patients were divided into three groups: hand-sewn-, circular stapled-, and linear-stapled anastomosis group. Demographic information and surgery-related data were extracted. The primary outcome was the rate of anastomotic leakages (AL) in the three groups. Moreover, the rate of grade A, B and C anastomotic leakage were evaluated. In addition, patients of each group were divided in subgroups according to the characteristics of anastomotic fashioning technique.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty patients were enrolled in the study. No significant differences were found between the three groups about AL rate (p = 0.137). Considering the management of the AL for each of the three groups, no significant differences were found. Evaluating the correlation between AL rate and the characteristics of anastomotic fashioning technique, no significant differences were found.

CONCLUSIONS

No standardized anastomotic fashioning technique has yet been generally accepted. This study could be considered a call to perform ad hoc high-quality studies involving high-volume centers for upper gastrointestinal surgery to evaluate what is the most advantageous anastomotic technique.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American Society for Radiation Oncology Updated Clinical Practice Guidelines on Multimodality Therapy for Locally Advanced Cancer of the Esophagus or Gastroesophageal Junction

Outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer have improved over the last decade with the implementation of multimodality therapy. There are currently no comprehensive guidelines addressing multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer that have incorporated the input of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. To address the need for multidisciplinary input in the management of esophageal cancer and to meet current best practices for clinical practice guidelines, the current guidelines were created as a collaboration between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Physician representatives chose 8 key clinical questions pertinent to the care of patients with locally advanced, resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (excluding cervical location). A comprehensive literature review was performed identifying 227 articles that met the inclusion criteria covering the use of induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy before surgery, optimal radiation dose, the value of esophagectomy, timing of esophagectomy, the approach and extent of lymphadenectomy, the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and the value of adjuvant therapy after resection. The relevant data were reviewed and voted on by the panel with 80% of the authors, with 75% agreement on class and level of evidence. These data were then complied into the guidelines document.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American Society for Radiation Oncology Updated Clinical Practice Guidelines on Multimodality Therapy for Locally Advanced Cancer of the Esophagus or Gastroesophageal Junction

Outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer have improved over the last decade with the implementation of multimodality therapy. There are currently no comprehensive guidelines addressing multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer that have incorporated the input of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. To address the need for multidisciplinary input in the management of esophageal cancer and to meet current best practices for clinical practice guidelines, the current guidelines were created as a collaboration between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Physician representatives chose 8 key clinical questions pertinent to the care of patients with locally advanced, resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (excluding cervical location). A comprehensive literature review was performed identifying 227 articles that met the inclusion criteria covering the use of induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy before surgery, optimal radiation dose, the value of esophagectomy, timing of esophagectomy, the approach and extent of lymphadenectomy, the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and the value of adjuvant therapy after resection. The relevant data were reviewed and voted on by the panel with 80% of the authors, with 75% agreement on class and level of evidence. These data were then complied into the guidelines document.

Robotic-Assisted Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy Is Safe and Cost Equivalent Compared to Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in a Tertiary Referral Center

In recent decades, robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been increasingly adopted for patients with esophageal cancer (EC) or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). However, concerns regarding its costs compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) have emerged. This study examined outcomes and costs of RAMIE versus total MIE in 128 patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for EC/GEJ at our department between 2017 and 2021. Surgical costs were higher for RAMIE (EUR 12,370 vs. EUR 10,059, p < 0.001). Yet, median daily (EUR 2023 vs. EUR 1818, p = 0.246) and total costs (EUR 30,510 vs. EUR 29,180, p = 0.460) were comparable. RAMIE showed a lower incidence of postoperative pneumonia (8% vs. 25%, p = 0.029) and a trend towards shorter hospital stays (15 vs. 17 days, p = 0.205), which may have equalized total costs. Factors independently associated with higher costs included readmission to the intensive care unit (hazard ratio [HR] = 7.0), length of stay (HR = 13.5), anastomotic leak (HR = 17.0), and postoperative pneumonia (HR = 5.4). In conclusion, RAMIE does not impose an additional financial burden. This suggests that RAMIE may be considered as a valid alternative approach for esophagectomy. Attention to typical cost factors can enhance postoperative care across surgical methods.

Safe and efficient 2-step implementation of totally minimally invasive esophagectomy

Background

The clinical benefits of totally minimal invasive esophagectomy (TIME) compared to open esophagectomy are documented and include reduced morbidity like pulmonary infections, shorter hospital stay and an increase in short-term quality of life. However, transition to TIME can be associated with a learning curve associated increased morbidity. We report our implementation of TIME using a 2-step approach, where the thoracoscopic part was added to the laparoscopic part in carefully selected patients. The hypothesis was that the 2-step implementation provides a safe and efficient implementation without compromising the outcomes for the patients. The aim of this study was to evaluation the implementation of minimal invasive esophagectomy at Aarhus University Hospital, where a 2-step implementation strategy has been used.

Methods

In this retrospective observational cohort study a total of 369 patients with esophagus or gastroesophageal cancers underwent esophagectomy from September 1st, 2016 to July 31st, 2021 in a single high-volume tertiary institution. Totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy was performed by experienced minimal invasive surgeons in 120 of the cases. The study presents the complication rates of the TIME patients in the implementation phase.

Results

Anastomotic leakage occurred in 7.5% of the cases and pneumonia occurred in 5.8% of the cases. The lymph node count reached 16 or more in 94.3% of the cases and R0-resection was performed in 98.3% of the cases. Textbook outcome for esophageal cancer surgery was achieved in 45.8% of the patients.

Conclusions

Hybrid minimal invasive esophagectomy can serve as a step towards totally minimally invasive esophagectomy. In our institution, major learning curve associated complications was avoided and a high level of cancer control was achieved by a 2-step implementation strategy in carefully selected patients.

Controversies in the surgical management of esophageal adenocarcinoma

The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has risen dramatically over the last decade. Over this same period, our understanding and treatments have been revolutionized. Just over a decade ago, the majority of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer went directly to surgery and our overall survival was bleak. Our current strategy for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is a multi-disciplinary approach. This approach consists of chemotherapy plus or minus radiation followed by surgical resection followed by adjuvant immunotherapy with the presence of any residual disease. Therefore, now more than ever, the goals of surgery are to minimize morbidity, provide aggressive local control and allow patients to receive to quickly recover so they can receive adjuvant systemic therapy. Surgery continues to play a crucial role in the multi-disciplinary approach to EAC. This review will highlight the on-going areas of controversy in surgical treatment. These controversies are around surgical selection, perioperative decision making and the role of surgery. Specifically, there are controversies in the type of surgical approach offered. This review will discuss the benefits of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy. The indications for gastrectomy versus esophagectomy in patients with gastroesophageal junction EAC. Further, at the time of operation, there is still debate and on-going trials addressing the addition of a pyloric intervention. Lastly, as we push the limits of systemic therapy, there are those who may not even need a surgical resection. This review will cover the most recent data on selective esophageal resection and the concerns regarding this approach.

Unraveling the Complexity of Regulated Cell Death in Esophageal Cancer: from Underlying Mechanisms to Targeted Therapeutics

Esophageal cancer (EC) is the sixth most common and the seventh most deadly malignancy of the digestive tract, representing a major global health challenge. Despite the availability of multimodal therapeutic strategies, the existing EC treatments continue to yield unsatisfactory results due to their limited efficacy and severe side effects. Recently, knowledge of the subroutines and molecular mechanisms of regulated cell death (RCD) has progressed rapidly, enhancing the understanding of key pathways related to the occurrence, progression, and treatment of many types of tumors, including EC. In this context, the use of small-molecule compounds to target such RCD subroutines has emerged as a promising therapeutic strategy for patients with EC. Thus, in this review, we firstly discussed the risk factors and prevention of EC. We then outlined the established treatment regimens for patients with EC. Furthermore, we not only briefly summarized the mechanisms of five best studied subroutines of RCD related to EC, including apoptosis, ferroptosis, pyroptosis, necroptosis and autophagy, but also outlined the recent advances in the development of small-molecule compounds and long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) targeting the abovementioned RCD subroutines, which may serve as a new therapeutic strategy for patients with EC in the future.

Single chest drain is not inferior to double chest drain after robotic esophagectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis

Background

Chest drain management has a significant influence on postoperative recovery after robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). The use of chest drains increases postoperative pain by irritating intercostal nerves and hinders patients from early postoperative mobilization and recovery. To our knowledge, no study has investigated the use of two vs. one intercostal chest drains after RAMIE.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients undergoing elective RAMIE with gastric conduit pull-up and intrathoracic anastomosis. Patients were divided into two groups according to placement of one (11/2020-08/2022) or two (08/2018-11/2020) chest drains. Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio, and the incidences of overall and pulmonary complications, drainage-associated re-interventions, radiological diagnostics, analgesic use, and length of hospital stay were compared between single drain and double drain groups.

Results

During the study period, 194 patients underwent RAMIE. Twenty-two patients were included after propensity score matching in the single and double chest drain group, respectively. Time until removal of the last chest drain [postoperative day (POD) 6.7 ± 4.4 vs. POD 9.4 ± 2.7, p = 0.004] and intensive care unit stay (4.2 ± 5.1 days vs. 5.3 ± 3.5 days, p = 0.01) were significantly shorter in the single drain group. Overall and pulmonary complications, drainage-associated events, re-interventions, number of diagnostic imaging, analgesic use, and length of hospital stay were comparable between both groups.

Conclusion

This study is the first to demonstrate the safety of single intercostal chest drain use and, at least, non-inferiority to double chest drains in terms of perioperative complications after RAMIE.

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.

Management of Esophago-Gastric Junction Carcinoma: A Narrative Multidisciplinary Review

Esophagogastric junction (EGJ) carcinoma represents a specific site of disease, given the opportunities for multimodal clinical care and management and the possibilities of combined treatments. It encompasses various clinical subgroups of disease that are heterogeneous and deserve different treatments; therefore, the guidelines have progressively evolved over time, considering the evidence provided by clinical trials. The aim of this narrative review was to summarize the main evidence, which orientates the current guidelines, and to collect the main ongoing studies to address existing gray areas.

Advances in conduits and anastomotic techniques employed in esophageal cancer resections: A review

Esophageal surgery has evolved significantly since the first esophagectomy, with advancements in diagnosis allowing medicine to keep pace with the disease's increasing incidence. Multimodal treatment improves outcomes, but surgical resection remains imperative for local control, with various techniques in existence but none demonstrating clear superiority. More recently, minimally invasive and robotic surgery have further reduced perioperative morbidity. This review discusses techniques for esophageal resection, with attention to the options available for anastomosis and reconstructive conduits.

The Implementation of Minimally Invasive Surgery in the Treatment of Esophageal Cancer: A Step Toward Better Outcomes?

Esophagectomy is considered the cornerstone of the radical treatment of esophageal cancer. In the past decades, minimally invasive techniques including robot-assisted approaches have become popular. The aim of minimally invasive surgery is to reduce the surgical trauma, resulting in faster recovery, reduction in complications, and better quality of life after surgery. Secondly, a more precise dissection may lead to better oncological outcomes. As such, minimally invasive esophagectomy is now seen by many as the standard surgical approach. However, evidence supporting this viewpoint is limited. This narrative review summarizes recent prospectively designed studies on minimally invasive esophagectomy.

McKeown esophagectomy: robot-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive technique-systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

This meta-analysis assesses the surgical outcomes between robot-assisted minimally-invasive McKeown esophagectomy and conventional one.

METHOD

This meta-analysis searched the Web of Science, PUBMED, and EMBASE from the database's inception to January 2022. Altogether, 1073 records were identified in the literature search. Studies that evaluated the outcomes between robot-assisted minimally-invasive McKeown esophagectomy and conventional one among postoperative patients with oesophageal neoplasms were included. The assessed outcomes involved complications and clinical outcomes. In addition, heterogeneity was analyzed, and evidence quality was evaluated.

RESULT

Evidence indicated that RAMIE (minimally-invasive esophagectomy assisted with robot) decreased incidences of lung complications and hospital stay as well as increased harvested lymph nodes.

CONCLUSIONS

There was currently little evidence from randomized studies depicting that robot surgery manifested a clear overall advantage, but there was growing evidence regarding the clinical benefits of robot-assisted minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy over conventional one.

Comparison of complications and long-term survival after minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Objective

To compare the complications and long-term survival of esophageal cancer patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) versus open esophagectomy (OE) using propensity score matching (PSM).

Methods

Esophageal cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy at the Thoracic Surgery Department of the First Affiliated Hospital of Hebei North University from January 2010 to December 2018 were retrospectively enrolled. The incidence of postoperative complications and prognosis of the MIE (n = 132) and OE (n = 138) groups were compared. To reduce bias, 1:1 PSM was adopted for the analysis.

Results

The median disease-free survival (DFS) of the MIE and OE groups were 24 months and 26 months, respectively, and neither group reached median survival. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of 3-year DFS and overall survival (OS). The stratification of the patients on the basis of the percentage of estimated forced expiratory volume in the first second (%FEV1) did not result in significant differences in the survival rates. A total of 42 patients (50%) in the MIE group and 55 patients (65.48%) in the OE group experienced complications, and the difference was statistically significant (OR=0.527, 95% CI: 0.283–0.981, P=0.042). The incidence of acute COPD exacerbation (OR=0.213, 95% OR, CI: 0.068–0.666, P=0.004) and pulmonary atelectasis requiring bronchoscopic aspiration (OR=0.232, 95% OR, CI: 0.082–0.659, P=0.004) were significantly higher in the OE versus the MIE group. In addition, the distribution of the various grades of complications also differed significantly between the two groups (P=0.016). While the incidence of minor complications (≤Grade II) was similar in both groups (P=0.503), that of severe complications (≥Grade III) was markedly higher in the OE group (P=0.002) and the Grade-IIIa complications were predominant (P=0.001). The severity of complications was correlated with the postoperative duration of hospital stay in both groups (r=0.187, P=0.015). No significant difference was observed in the incidence of minor complications (≤Grade II) between the two groups following stratification on the basis of %FEV1, whereas severe complications were more frequent in the OE group among patients with %FEV1 between 60% and 70% (P=0.001<0.05).

Conclusion

There was no significant difference in the postoperative DFS and OS of esophageal cancer patients with COPD after undergoing MIE or OE. However, MIE significantly reduced the incidence of severe postoperative complications among patients with %FEV1 between 60% and 70%.

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.

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.

Population-Based Cohort Study from a Prospective National Registry: Better Long-Term Survival in Esophageal Cancer After Minimally Invasive Compared with Open Transthoracic Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Recent research indicates long-term survival benefits of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) compared with open esophagectomy (OE) for patients with esophageal and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers, but there is a need for more population-based studies.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective population-based nationwide cohort study including all patients in Sweden diagnosed with esophageal or junctional cancer who underwent a transthoracic esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis. Data were collected from the Swedish National Register for Esophageal and Gastric Cancer in 2006-2019. Patients were grouped into OE and MIE including hybrid MIE (HMIE) and totally MIE (TMIE). Overall survival and short-term postoperative outcomes were compared using Cox regression and logistic regression models, respectively. All models were adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, clinical T and N stage, neoadjuvant therapy, year of surgery, and hospital volume.

RESULTS

Among 1404 patients, 998 (71.1%) underwent OE and 406 (28.9%) underwent MIE. Compared with OE, overall survival was better following MIE (hazard ratio [HR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.94), TMIE (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47-0.94), and possibly also after HMIE (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56-1.02). MIE was associated with shorter operation time, less intraoperative bleeding, higher number of resected lymph nodes, and shorter hospital stay compared with OE. MIE was also associated with fewer overall complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.70, 95% CI 0.47-1.03) as well as non-surgical complications (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.40-1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

MIE seems to offer better survival and similar or improved short-term postoperative outcomes in esophageal and GEJ cancers compared with OE in this unselected population-based cohort.

Long-term survival of patients with T1bN0M0 esophageal cancer after thoracoscopic esophagectomy using data from JCOG0502: a prospective multicenter trial

BACKGROUND

Thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) is considered the standard surgery for esophageal cancer because of its superiority over open esophagectomy (OE) in terms of short-term outcomes. However, few prospective multicenter studies have evaluated its long-term survival after TE. This study aimed to investigate whether the prognosis for patients with T1bN0M0 esophageal cancer after TE is not inferior to OE using data from the Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study (JCOG0502), a prospective multicenter trial comparing esophagectomy with chemoradiotherapy.

METHODS

Data of patients in JCOG0502 after esophagectomy were used to compare the overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) after OE versus TE. OE or TE was selected at the surgeon's discretion. A hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated via Cox proportional-hazards model.

RESULTS

Of the 210 patients who underwent esophagectomy, 109 underwent OE, whereas 101 underwent TE. The 5-year OS was 88.9% after OE and 85.0% after TE. The hazard ratio of TE for OS was 1.53 (95% CI, 0.84-2.78; p = 0.16) and 1.10 (95% CI, 0.52-2.35; p = 0.80) in the univariable and multivariable analyses, respectively. The 5-year RFS was 85.3% after OE and 79.1% after TE. The hazard ratio of TE for RFS was 1.39 (95% CI, 0.81-2.38; p = 0.23) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.44-1.74; p = 0.70) in the univariable and multivariable analyses, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The prognosis for patients with T1bN0M0 esophageal cancer after TE was not inferior to OE.

Today's Mistakes and Tomorrow's Wisdom in the Surgical Treatment of Barrett's Adenocarcinoma

Background

Barrett's esophagus is a premalignant condition caused by longstanding gastroesophageal reflux disease and may progress to low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia (HGD), and finally esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Summary

Barrett's adenocarcinoma can be treated either by endoscopic or surgical resection, depending on the clinical staging. Endoscopic resection is a safe and adequate treatment option for HGD, mucosal tumors, and low-risk submucosal tumors. Its role in the treatment of high-risk submucosal tumors and the role of organ-preserving sentinel node navigated surgery are still under investigation. Esophagectomy with neoadjuvant chemoradiation or perioperative chemotherapy is considered the standard of care for locally advanced Barrett's adenocarcinoma. Regarding operative technique, there is no proven superiority of one technique over another, although a minimally invasive transthoracic technique seems most commonly applied nowadays. In this review, state-of-the-art evidence and future expectations are presented regarding indications for resection, neoadjuvant or perioperative therapy, type of surgery, and postoperative follow-up for Barrett's adenocarcinoma.

Key Messages

In Barrett's adenocarcinoma, endoscopic resection is the standard treatment option for low-risk mucosal and submucosal tumors. For high-risk submucosal tumors, endoscopic submucosal dissection with close surveillance and sentinel node navigated surgery are currently being studied. For locally advanced cancer, a multimodal therapy including esophagectomy is the standard of care. Nowadays, in high-volume centers, a minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy with an intrathoracic anastomosis is the most common procedure for Barrett's adenocarcinoma.

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy within the prospective multicenter German da Vinci Xi registry trial

Abstract

Purpose

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has become one standard approach for the operative treatment of esophageal tumors at specialized centers. Here, we report the results of a prospective multicenter registry for standardized RAMIE.

Methods

The German da Vinci Xi registry trial included all consecutive patients who underwent RAMIE at five tertiary university centers between Oct 17, 2017, and Jun 5, 2020. RAMIE was performed according to a standard technique using an intrathoracic circular stapled esophagogastrostomy.

Results

A total of 220 patients were included. The median age was 64 years. Total minimally invasive RAMIE was accomplished in 85.9%; hybrid resection with robotic-assisted thoracic approach was accomplished in an additional 11.4%. A circular stapler size of ≥28 mm was used in 84%, and the median blood loss and operative time were 200 (IQR: 80–400) ml and 425 (IQR: 335–527) min, respectively. The rate of anastomotic leakage was 13.2% (n=29), whereas the two centers with >70 cases each had rates of 7.0% and 12.0%. Pneumonia occurred in 19.5% of patients, and the 90-day mortality was 3.6%. Cumulative sum analysis of the operative time indicated the end of the learning curve after 22 cases.

Conclusions

High-quality multicenter registry data confirm that RAMIE is a safe procedure and can be reproduced with acceptable leak rates in a multicenter setting. The learning curve is comparably low for experienced robotic surgeons.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00423-022-02520-w.

Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy with extended lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer compared with video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: A single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The safety and feasibility of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) remain unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of RAMIE with extended lymphadenectomy and conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in order to investigate the safety and feasibility of RAMIE.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 87 patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy at our institution between April 2018 and March 2020 was made, assigning 22 in the RAMIE group and 65 in the MIE group. Short-term clinical outcomes and clinical baseline data were compared.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics were comparable. No significant difference in median thoracic phase blood loss and median number of dissected mediastinal lymph nodes were observed. The median operative time of thoracic approach was significantly longer in the RAMIE group than the MIE group (305 minutes [221-397] vs 227 minutes [133-365], P < .0001). With respect to postoperative complications such as recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade II) (RAMIE 4.6% vs MIE 17%, P = .11) and postoperative pneumonia (Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade III) (RAMIE 9% vs MIE 23%, P = .13), no significant difference was observed. The patients in the RAMIE group had a better postoperative swallowing function (P = .023) and were able to start oral food intake significantly earlier (P = .007). The median hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RAMIE group than in the MIE (23 days vs 35 days, P = .009).

CONCLUSIONS

RAMIE with extended lymphadenectomy was safe and feasible for esophageal cancer and resulted in improved postoperative swallowing function and shorter postoperative hospital stay.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Versus Radical Surgery for T1 Superficial Esophageal Cell Carcinoma: a Subgroup Survival Analysis

BACKGROUND

With the continuous advent of magnifying endoscopy, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has gradually become the mainstream treatment for early esophageal cancer. We aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with T1 superficial esophageal cell carcinoma treated with ESD vs. esophagectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent ESD or radical surgery at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018. The purpose of propensity score matching is to reduce selection bias. Precise subgroup analysis according to depth of invasion was performed to reduce the influence of confounding factors.

RESULT

We reviewed patients who underwent ESD (n = 117) or radical surgery (n = 217) at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from 2010 to 2018. The OS rate and progression-free survival rate in the ESD group were better than those in the surgery group (OS, P = 0.002. PFS, P = 0.004). The ESD group had a lower early adverse event rate (74.6% vs. 91%, P = 0.012), shorter hospital stays (median 10 days vs. 18 days, P < 0.001), and lower hospitalization costs (median 15,455 vs. 62,376 RMB, P < 0.001). Multivariate Cox regression analysis found that the treatment method was an independent risk factor affecting the prognosis of patients with superficial esophageal cancer, and the death risk of patients in the ESD group was 0.377 times that of the radical surgery group (HR = 0.377, P = 0.023). We conducted a subgroup analysis of patients again according to the depth of invasion; 37 pairs of patients were included in the T1a stage, and 19 pairs of patients were included in the T1b stage. In T1a and T1b patients, the difference in OS rate and PFS rate between the two treatments was statistically significant (T1a, OS, P = 0.002, PFS, P = 0.004; T1b, OS, P = 0.019, PFS, P = 0.022), and the OS rates in the ESD group were better than those in the radical surgery group.

CONCLUSION

For patients with T1b superficial esophageal cancer, ESD has a longer overall survival and progression-free survival compared with radical surgery. These results support ESD as the preferred treatment for stage T1b superficial esophageal cancer.

The Evolution of the Treatment of Esophageal Achalasia: From the Open to the Minimally Invasive Approach

BACKGROUND

Achalasia is a primary esophageal motility disorder characterized by lack of esophageal peristalsis and partial or absent relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter in response to swallowing. This study aimed to provide an overview of the evolution of the surgical treatment for esophageal achalasia, from the open to the minimally invasive approach.

METHODS

Literature review.

RESULTS

No curative treatment exists for this disorder. At the beginning of the 20th century, surgical esophagoplasties and cardioplasties were mostly done to treat achalasia. The description of the esophageal myotomy by Heller changed the treatment paradigm and rapidly became the treatment of choice. For many years the esophagomyotomy was done with either an open transthoracic or transabdominal approach. With the advancements of minimally invasive surgery, thoracoscopic and laparoscopic operations became available. The ability to add a fundoplication for the prevention of reflux made the laparoscopic Heller myotomy with partial fundoplication the operation of choice.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical management of esophageal achalasia has significantly evolved in the last century. Currently, minimally invasive Heller myotomy with partial fundoplication is the standard surgical treatment of achalasia.

Transcervical inflatable mediastinoscopic esophagectomy versus thoracoscopic esophagectomy for local early‐ and intermediate‐stage esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A propensity score‐matched analysis

Background and objective

Transcervical inflatable mediastinoscopic esophagectomy (TIME) is a novel method of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer. However, whether TIME is effective and feasible as conventional MIE remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of TIME by comparing it with thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE).

Methods

Surgical outcomes and relapse‐free survival (RFS) rates of patients with local early‐ or intermediate‐stage thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma that underwent TIME or TE from January 2017 to December 2019 were analyzed in this retrospective study. Propensity score matching was used to control the confounding factors.

Results

The mean operation time in TIME was shorter than that in TE (p < 0.05). Patients in the TIME group achieved postoperative ambulation earlier than those in the TE group (p < 0.05). The rate of pulmonary complications was lower in TIME than in TE (p < 0.05). The number of lymph nodes harvested during surgery and the RFS rates of two groups did not have significant differences.

Conclusion

TIME may be a feasible and safe method to treat local early‐ and intermediate‐stage thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma effectively and it could be a supplementary surgical method of TE for patients with poor pulmonary function or cannot undergo TE.

Pilot Study of Patient Reported Outcomes in Patients with Esophageal Cancer following Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes are critical measures of patient well-being following esophagectomy. In this pilot study, we assessed PROs before and after esophagectomy using the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) to assess patient recovery following surgery.

METHODS

We prospectively collected PROMIS dyspnea severity, physical function, and pain interference measures from patients with esophageal cancer undergoing esophagectomy (2017-2020). We merged these data with our institutional Society of Thoracic Surgery esophagectomy database. We used linear mixed-effect multivariable models to assess changes in PROMIS scores (least square mean [LSM] differences) between pre-operative and post-operative timepoints (1-month, 6-month).

RESULTS

The study included 112 patients undergoing esophagectomy. Pain interference, physical function, and dyspnea severity scores were significantly worse 1 month following surgery. While physical function and dyspnea severity scores returned to baseline 6 months after surgery, pain interference scores remained persistently worse (LSM difference 2.7 ± 2.5, p=0.036). PROMIS scores were further assessed among patients undergoing transhiatal esophagectomy compared to transthoracic esophagectomy. Physical function and dyspnea severity scores were similar between the groups at each time point. However, pain interference scores were persistently better among patients undergoing THE at both 1 month (LSM difference 6.5 ± 5.1, p=0.013) and 6 months after surgery (LSM difference 5.2 ± 3.9, p=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study assessing PROMIS scores after esophagectomy for cancer reveals that pain is a persistently reported symptom up to 6 months following surgery, particularly among patients receiving transthoracic esophagectomy.

Assessment of Health Related Quality of Life and Digestive Symptoms in Long-term, Disease Free Survivors After Esophagectomy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate long-term HRQOL and symptom evolution in disease free patients up to 20 years after esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy has been associated with decreased HRQOL and persistent gastrointestinal symptoms.

METHODS

The study cohort was identified from 2 high volume centers for the management of esophageal cancer. Patients completed HRQOL and symptom questionnaires, including: Digestive Symptom Questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-OG25 Euro QoL 5D, and SF36. Patients were assessed in 3 cohorts: <1 year; 1-5 years, and; >5 years after surgery.

RESULTS

In total 171 of 222 patients who underwent esophagectomy between 1991 and 2017 who met inclusion criteria and were contactable, responded to the questionnaires, corresponding to a response rate of 77%. Median age was 66.2 years, and median time from operation to survey was 5.6 years (range 0.3-23.1). Early satiety was the most commonly reported symptom in all patients irrespective of timeframe (87.4%; range 82%-92%). Dysphagia was seen to decrease over time (58% at <2 years; 28% at 2-5 years; 20% at >5 years; P = 0.013). Weight loss scores demonstrated nonstatistical improvement over time. All other symptom scores including heartburn, regurgitation, respiratory symptoms, and pain scores remained constant over time. Average HRQOL did not improve from levels 1 year after surgery compared to patients up to 23 years after esophagectomy.

CONCLUSION

With the exception of dysphagia, which improved over time, esophagectomy was associated with decreased HRQOL and lasting gastrointestinal symptoms up to 20 years after surgery. Pertinently however long-term survivors after oesophagectomy demonstrated comparable to improved HRQOL compared to the general population. The impact of esophagectomy on gastrointestinal symptoms and long-term HRQOL should be considered when counseling and caring for patients undergoing esophagectomy.

Early implementation of a perioperative nutrition support pathway for patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Background

Unintentional weight loss and malnutrition are associated with poorer prognosis in patients with cancer. Risk of cancer‐associated malnutrition is highest among patients with esophageal cancer (EC) and has been repeatedly shown to be an independent risk factor for worse survival in these patients. Implementation of nutrition protocols may reduce postoperative weight loss and enhance recovery in these patients.

Methods

We retrospectively identified all patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for EC from January 2015 to August 2019 from a prospectively collected institutional database. Patients who underwent surgery after the implementation of this protocol (September 2017–August 2019) were compared with patients who underwent resection before protocol implementation (January 2015–July 2017). Patients undergoing surgery during the month of protocol initiation were excluded.

Results

Of the 404 patients included in our study, 217 were in the preprotocol group, and 187 were in the postprotocol group. Compared with the preprotocol group, there were significant reductions in length of hospital stay (p < 0.001), time to diet initiation (p < 0.001), time to feeding tube removal (p = 0.012), and postoperative weight loss (p = 0.002) in the postprotocol group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications, 30‐day readmission, or mortality rates between groups.

Conclusions

Results of the present study suggest a standardized perioperative nutrition protocol may prevent unintentional weight loss and improve postoperative outcomes in patients with EC undergoing resection.

Profiling patient-reported symptom recovery from oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a real-world longitudinal study

PURPOSE

Oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients have severe symptom burden after oesophagectomy; however, longitudinal studies of symptom recovery after surgery are scarce. This study used longitudinal patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based symptoms to identify severe symptoms and profile symptom recovery from surgery in patients undergoing oesophagectomy.

METHODS

Oesophageal cancer patients (N = 327) underwent oesophagectomy were consecutively included between April 2019 and March 2020. Data were extracted from the Sichuan Cancer Hospital's Esophageal Cancer Case Management Registration Database. Symptom assessment time points were pre-surgery and 1, 3, 5, 7, 14, 21, 30, and 90 days post-surgery using the Chinese version of the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory. And each symptom was rated on an 11-point scale, with 0 being 'not present' and 10 being 'as bad as you can imagine'. The symptom recovery trajectories were profiled using mixed effect models and Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

The most-severe symptoms on day 1 after oesophagectomy were pain, fatigue, dry mouth, disturbed sleep, and distress. The severity of symptoms peaked on day 1 after surgery. The top two symptoms were fatigue (mean: 5.44 [SD 1.88]) and pain (mean: 5.23 [SD 1.29]). Fatigue was more severe 90 days after surgery than at baseline (mean: 1.77 [SD 1.47] vs 0.65 [SD 1.05]; P < .0001). Disturbed sleep and distress persisted from pre-surgery to 90 days post-surgery; average sleep recovery time was up to 20 days, and 50.58% of patients had sleep disturbances 90 days post-surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Early post-operative pain management after oesophagectomy should be considered. Characteristics and intervention strategies of post-operative fatigue, distress, and disturbed sleep in oesophageal cancer patients warrant further studies.

Surgical Therapy of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma-Current Standards and Future Perspectives

Simple Summary

Subtotal resection of the esophagus with resection of local lymph nodes is the oncological procedure of choice for advanced esophageal cancer. Reconstruction of the intestinal tract is predominantly performed with a gastric tube. Even in specialized centers, this surgical procedure is associated with a high complication but low mortality rate. Therefore, clinical research aims to develop peri- and intra-operative strategies to improve the patient related outcome.

Abstract

Transthoracic esophagectomy is currently the predominant curative treatment option for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma. The majority of carcinomas present as locally advanced tumors requiring multimodal strategies with either neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy alone. Minimally invasive, including robotic, techniques are increasingly applied with a broad spectrum of technical variations existing for the oncological resection as well as gastric reconstruction. At the present, intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy is the preferred technique of reconstruction (Ivor Lewis esophagectomy). With standardized surgical procedures, a complete resection of the primary tumor can be achieved in almost 95% of patients. Even in expert centers, postoperative morbidity remains high, with an overall complication rate of 50–60%, whereas 30- and 90-day mortality are reported to be <2% and <6%, respectively. Due to the complexity of transthoracic esophagetomy and its associated morbidity, esophageal surgery is recommended to be performed in specialized centers with an appropriate caseload yet to be defined. In order to reduce postoperative morbidity, the selection of patients, preoperative rehabilitation and postoperative fast-track concepts are feasible strategies of perioperative management. Future directives aim to further centralize esophageal services, to individualize surgical treatment for high-risk patients and to implement intraoperative imaging modalities modifying the oncological extent of resection and facilitating surgical reconstruction.

Outcomes of robotic esophagectomy

Esophagectomy has long been considered the standard of care for early-stage (≤ T2N0) esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), using a combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approach, was first performed in the 1990s and showed significant improvements over open approaches. Refinement of MIE arrived in the form of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in 2004. MIE is a challenging procedure for which consensus on optimal technique is still elusive. Although nonrobotic MIE confers significant advantages over open approaches, MIE remains associated with stubbornly high rates of complications, including pneumonia, aspiration, arrhythmia, anastomotic leakage, surgical site infection, and vocal cord palsy. RAMIE was envisioned to improve operative-associated morbidity while achieving equivalent or superior oncologic outcomes to nonrobotic MIE. However, owing to RAMIE’s significant upfront costs, steep learning curve, and other requirements, adoption remains less than widespread and convincing evidence supporting its use from well-designed studies is lacking. In this review, we compare operative, oncologic, and quality-of-life outcomes between open esophagectomy, nonrobotic MIE, and RAMIE. Although RAMIE remains a relatively new and underexplored modality, several studies in the literature show that it is feasible and results in similar outcomes to other MIE approaches. Moreover, RAMIE has been associated with favorable patient satisfaction and quality of life.

Robot-assisted and conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy are associated with better postoperative results compared to hybrid and open transthoracic esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Currently 4 surgical techniques are performed for transthoracic esophagectomy (open esophagectomy (OE), hybrid esophagectomy (HE), conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). Aim of this study was to compare these 4 different esophagectomy approaches regarding postoperative complications and short term oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

Between 2008 and 2019, consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction were included in this single center study. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Overall 422 patients (OE (n = 107), HE (n = 101), MIE (n = 91) and RAMIE (n = 123)) were evaluated. Uncomplicated postoperative course was observed in 27% (OE), 34% (HE), 53% (MIE), and 63% (RAMIE) of patients (p < 0.001). Pulmonary complications were observed in 57% (OE), 44% (HE), 28% (MIE), and 21% (RAMIE) of patients (p < 0.001). Cardiac complications were present in 25% (OE), 23% (HE), 9% (MIE), and 11% (RAMIE) of patients (p < 0.001). MIE and RAMIE were associated with fewer wound infections (p < 0.001). Median hospital stay after MIE (13 days) and RAMIE (12 days) was shorter compared to OE (20 days) and HE (17 days) (p < 0.001). A median number of 21 (OE), 23 (HE), 23 (MIE), and 31 (RAMIE) lymph nodes was harvested (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Total minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE, RAMIE) was associated with a lower overall, pulmonary, cardiac and wound complication rate as well as a shorter hospital stay compared to open or hybrid approach (OE, HE). RAMIE resulted in higher lymph node harvest than MIE.

Lasting symptoms and long-term health-related quality of life after totally minimally invasive, hybrid and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy

AIM

Compared to open esophagectomy (OE), both totally minimally invasive (TMIE) and laparoscopy-assisted hybrid minimally invasive (HMIE) reduce postoperative morbidity and improve short-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We aimed to compare lasting symptoms and long-term HRQoL in an international population-based setting between patients who underwent Ivor Lewis TMIE, HMIE or OE.

METHODS

Patients who were relapse-free at least one year after TMIE, HMIE or OE for esophageal or junctional carcinoma between January 2010 and June 2016 were included. Patients completed the LASER questionnaire to assess lasting symptoms after esophagectomy and the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OG25 questionnaires to assess HRQoL. Primary endpoint was chest pain and secondary endpoints were pain from chest scars or abdominal scars, abdominal pain, fatigue and physical functioning. Differences in lasting symptoms and HRQoL were assessed with multivariable logistic and ANCOVA regression, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 362 patients were included (TMIE n = 91, HMIE n = 85, OE n = 186). Median follow-up was 3.9 years (IQR 2.8-5.4). Chest pain was reported less after TMIE compared with HMIE (adjusted OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.84), but was comparable between TMIE and OE (adjusted OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.12-1.41) and between HMIE and OE (adjusted OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.71-4.81). All secondary endpoints were comparable between TMIE, HMIE and OE. The impact of symptoms on taking medication, return to work, and performance status were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSION

Surgical technique seems to have little effect on lasting symptoms and long-term HRQoL after a median of four years after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and individual patient data comparing minimally invasive with open oesophagectomy for cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) for oesophageal cancer may reduce surgical complications compared with open oesophagectomy. MIO is, however, technically challenging and may impair optimal oncological resection. The aim of the present study was to assess if MIO for cancer is beneficial.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL was performed and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIO with open oesophagectomy were included in a meta-analysis. Survival was analysed using individual patient data. Random-effects model was used for pooled estimates of perioperative effects.

RESULTS

Among 3219 articles, six RCTs were identified including 822 patients. Three-year overall survival (56 (95 per cent c.i. 49 to 62) per cent for MIO versus 52 (95 per cent c.i. 44 to 60) per cent for open; P = 0.54) and disease-free survival (54 (95 per cent c.i. 47 to 61) per cent versus 50 (95 per cent c.i. 42 to 58) per cent; P = 0.38) were comparable. Overall complication rate was lower for MIO (odds ratio 0.33 (95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.53); P < 0.010) mainly due to fewer pulmonary complications (OR 0.44 (95 per cent c.i. 0.27 to 0.72); P < 0.010), including pneumonia (OR 0.41 (95 per cent c.i. 0.22 to 0.77); P < 0.010).

CONCLUSION

MIO for cancer is associated with a lower risk of postoperative complications compared with open resection. Overall and disease-free survival are comparable for the two techniques.

LAY SUMMARY

Oesophagectomy for cancer is associated with a high risk of complications. A minimally invasive approach might be less traumatic, leading to fewer complications and may also improve oncological outcome. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing minimally invasive to open oesophagectomy was performed. The analysis showed that the minimally invasive approach led to fewer postoperative complications, in particular, fewer pulmonary complications. Survival after surgery was comparable for the two techniques.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma, a randomized controlled trial (ROBOT-2 trial)

Background

For patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction, radical esophagectomy with 2-field lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of the multimodality treatment with curative intent. Both conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) were shown to be superior compared to open transthoracic esophagectomy considering postoperative complications. However, no randomized comparison exists between MIE and RAMIE in the Western World for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Methods

This is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven multicenter randomized controlled parallel-group superiority trial. All adult patients (age ≥ 18 and ≤ 90 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0–3, M0) esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction and with European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 will be assessed for eligibility and included after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 218) with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction are randomized to either RAMIE (n = 109) or MIE (n = 109). The primary outcome of this study is the total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes specified per lymph node station.

Conclusion

This is the first randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAMIE to MIE as surgical treatment for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction in the Western World. The hypothesis of the proposed study is that RAMIE will result in a higher abdominal and mediastinal lymph node yield specified per station compared to conventional MIE.

Short-term results and the primary endpoint (total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes per lymph node station) will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient within this trial.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04306458. Registered 13th March 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04306458; Date of first enrolment 18.01.2021; Target sample size 218; Recruitment status: Recruiting; Protocol version 2; Issue date 10.03.2020; Rev. 02.02.2021; Authors ET, PCvdS, PPG.

Hand-sewn versus stapled anastomoses for esophagectomy: We will probably never know which is better

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-thoracoscopic technique. Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence comparing conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (CMIE) via laparoscopy and thoracoscopy with robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is scarce. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare surgical outcomes after CMIE and RAMIE with an intrathoracic anastomosis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify original articles analyzing outcomes after CMIE and RAMIE. Main surgical outcomes included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, anastomotic leak rates, pneumonia, overall morbidity, length of stay (LOS), and 30-day mortality. Oncologic outcomes included lymph node yield and R0 resections rates. A meta-analysis of proportions and linear regression models were used to assess the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 6,249 patients were included for analysis; 5,275 (84%) underwent CMIE and 974 (16%) RAMIE. Robotic esophagectomy had longer operative time and less intraoperative blood loss. Anastomotic leakage rates were similar with both approaches. Patients undergoing RAMIE had significantly lower rates of postoperative pneumonia (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.61, P < .0001) and overall morbidity (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58-0.79, P < .0001). Median LOS was similar in both procedures (RAMIE: 12.1 versus CMIE: 11.9 days, P = .64). Similar mortality rates were found after RAMIE and CMIE (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34-1.38, P = .29). Lymph node yield was similar in both procedures, but RAMIE was associated with higher rates of R0 resection (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.53-5.26, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing robotic esophagectomy have less intraoperative blood loss, lower rates of postoperative pneumonia, reduced overall morbidity, and higher rates of R0 resections, as compared with those undergoing a laparoscopic-thoracoscopic esophageal resection.

Robotic Esophagectomy. A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes

Background: Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy is demonstrated to be related with a facilitation in thoracoscopic procedure. To give an update on the state of art of robotic esophagectomy for cancr a systematic review with meta-analysis has been performed. Methods: a search of the studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic or open esophagectomy was performed trough the medical libraries, with the search string “robotic and (oesophagus OR esophagus OR esophagectomy OR oesophagectomy)”. Outcomes were: postoperative complications rate (anastomotic leakage, bleeding, wound infection, pneumonia, recurrent laryngeal nerves paralysis, chylotorax, mortality), intraoperative outcomes (mean blood loss, operative time and conversion), oncologic outcomes (harvested nodes, R0 resection, recurrence) and recovery outcomes (length of hospital stay). Results: Robotic approach is superior to open surgery in terms of blood loss p = 0.001, wound infection rate, p = 0.002, pneumonia rate, p = 0.030 and mean number of harvested nodes, p < 0.0001 and R0 resection rate, p = 0.043. Similarly, robotic approach is superior to conventional laparoscopy in terms of mean number of harvested nodes, p = 0.001 pneumonia rate, p = 0.003. Conclusions: robotic surgery could be considered superior to both open surgery and conventional laparoscopy. These encouraging results should promote the diffusion of the robotic surgery, with the creation of randomized trials to overcome selection bias.

Optimization of robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the lateral decubitus position

BACKGROUND

On the introduction of robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (RATE), we refined the robotic system application to enhance our surgical experience obtained through thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) in the lateral decubitus position (LDP). Herein, we evaluate our methods introduced to optimize RATE in the LDP.

METHODS

We performed RATE in the LDP with camera rotation and manual hand control assignment to reproduce the surgical view and manipulation of open esophagectomy. Forty patients underwent RATE between July 2018 and August 2020. After the initial 30 cases (initial RATE group), we optimized the port arrangement and robot settings in the most recent ten cases (recent RATE group). The surgical results of RATE were compared with those of 30 patients underwent TE between April 2014 and May 2019 selected by propensity score-matched analysis based on cStage (TE group).

RESULTS

Operative duration was significantly longer in the initial RATE group than the TE group and the recent RATE group. Thoracic blood loss was significantly less in the initial RATE group than the TE group. Console time was significantly shorter in the recent RATE group than the initial RATE group. There was no surgical mortality in RATE and the surgical morbidity rate was similar in the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Camera rotation and manual hand control assignment during RATE in the LDP reproduced the surgical view and manipulation of open esophagectomy and TE in the LDP. The robotic platform enabled meticulous dissection and reduced blood loss, but was initially time-consuming. Optimization of the port arrangement minimized operative duration.

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.