Lymph Node Retrieval is Inferior in the Modified Merendino Resection for Early Barrett’s Carcinoma: A Matched-Pair Comparison with Ivor Lewis Resection

Merendino Resection vs. Transhiatal Gastric Conduit After Resection of the Cardia and the Gastroesophageal Junction

BACKGROUND

Reconstruction after combined cardia resection and removal of the gastroesophageal junction can be carried out by the Merendino procedure or via a gastric conduit. This study compares postoperative complications and quality of life for both approaches.

METHODS

All patients who underwent Merendino or gastric conduit reconstruction from 2011-2017 were included. Both groups were investigated regarding postoperative length of stay, complications, and gastrointestinal quality of life.

RESULTS

45 patients were identified, of which, 39 remained for analysis: 22 patients in the Merendino group and 17 patients in the gastric conduit group. The median age of patients in the gastric conduit group (71 (53-92) years) was significantly higher than in the Merendino group (58 (19-75) years), P = .0002. Hospital stay was significantly longer in the gastric conduit group (35.9 (11-82) days vs. 18.2 (7-43) days, P = .0299) and incidence of anastomotic leakage was higher (24% vs. 9%, P = .0171). General incidence of complications (Clavien-Dindo) did not vary (P = .1694). However, grade 5 complications only occurred in the Merendino group (n = 1). Evaluation of long-term outcome and quality of life showed dysphagia to only have occurred in the Merendino group (n = 3, 14%).

DISCUSSION

Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages: The Merendino procedure showed reduced incidence of anastomotic leakage and shorter hospital stay but was associated with a higher in-hospital mortality rate. Discrepancies in subgroup populations as well as small patient numbers limit the interpretation of the findings. This study does however provide a first comparison of these surgical approaches and may serve as a basis for further investigation.

[Surgical strategy for early stage carcinoma of the esophagus]

Early stage carcinomas of the esophagus are histologically differentiated into adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas and subdivided into mucosal (m1-3) and submucosal (sm1-3) carcinomas depending on the infiltration depth. While the prevalence of lymph node metastases in mucosal carcinomas is very low, the probability of lymph node metastases increases from submucosal infiltration with increasing depth. According to the current German S3 guidelines endoscopic resection is the recommended treatment strategy for mucosal adenocarcinoma without histological risk factors (lymphatic invasion [L1], venous invasion [V1], poorly differentiated [>G2], microscopic residual disease [R1] at the deep resection margin). For superficial submucosal infiltration (sm1) without histological risk factors endoscopic resection can also be carried out, whereby in this case the guidelines make a stronger recommendation for esophagectomy. For squamous cell carcinoma endoscopic resection is indicated for an infiltration depth up to middle layer mucosal carcinoma (m2) without histological risk factors. Outside of these criteria an esophageal resection should always be carried out. The surgical gold standard is a subtotal abdominothoracic esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy. Alternative procedures are total esophagectomy in proximal esophageal carcinoma and transhiatal extended gastrectomy for carcinoma of the cardia. Limited proximal or distal esophageal resections can be performed in proximal or distal mucosal carcinoma without the possibility of endoscopic resection; however, partial resections are not superior in terms of functional results and are not oncologically equivalent due to limited lymphadenectomy. Minimally invasive procedures show good oncological results and reduce the morbidity of radical esophagectomy. Reduced morbidity might be an argument for surgical resection in borderline cases between endoscopic and surgical resection.

[Endoscopic and surgical treatment of early gastric and esophageal carcinoma]

BACKGROUND

The treatment of early gastric (EGC) and esophageal carcinomas (EEC) is an interdisciplinary challenge. The risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM) is the crucial point in choosing the correct treatment option.

OBJECTIVE

This article gives an overview of the current treatment options and provides help in choosing the correct therapy.

METHOD

Current concepts and therapy algorithms are presented on the basis of a literature review and data from our own center.

RESULTS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is recommended for mucosal gastric cancer with good or moderate differentiation (G1,2) without macroscopic ulceration, in elevated type lesions smaller than 2 cm in size or depressed lesions smaller than 1 cm in size. In additional chromoendoscopy should be carried out. The extent of surgical resection is defined by the location of the tumor. A safety margin of at least 3 cm should be applied in distal gastric resections whereas the first line goal in gastrectomy is to achieve an R0 resection. In cN0 tumors a D1 lymphadenectomy (LA) seems to be sufficient. Minimally invasive techniques currently show promising results especially for a subtotal resection. The treatment strategy in EEC differs depending on the tumor entity. Mucosal squamous cell carcinoma with high risk factors (L1,V1) and all cN0 submucosal tumors without the detection of LNM should be referred to primary surgical resection. Early stage cN+ squamous cell carcinomas should be preoperatively treated with chemoradiotherapy. Adenocarcinoma with infiltration of the deeper submucosa (sm2,3) and high-risk sm1 tumors require surgical treatment. The standard operating procedure for EEC is an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with 2‑field LA preferably performed as a hybrid or by a completely minimally invasive procedure. The procedure of choice in endoscopic resection of EEC is resection with the suck and cut technique.