Linear- versus circular-stapled esophagogastric anastomosis during esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

Single-Port Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Using the Single-Port Robotic System via the Subcostal Approach: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has gained global popularity. Recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that RAMIE results in reduced operative times and a greater number of dissected lymph nodes compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). This study provides an initial analysis of single-port (SP) robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (SRAMIE) using the SP robotic system via the subcostal approach. The primary objective is to examine perioperative outcomes of SRAMIE compared to multi-port RAMIE (MRAMIE) using the Xi robotic system and video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (VAE).

METHODS

In this retrospective study, patients who underwent MIE at a single center between February 2017 and December 2024 were analyzed. Patients were divided into SRAMIE (n = 17), MRAMIE (n = 13), and VAE (n = 23) groups. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included chest tube duration, length of postoperative hospital stay, postoperative pain levels, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

The SRAMIE group did not experience conversions to thoracotomy or VAE. Compared with VAE, SRAMIE resulted in significantly shorter chest tube duration (p = 0.038), shorter postoperative hospital stays (p = 0.036), and lower peak postoperative pain (p = 0.003). No significant differences were observed among the groups regarding the total operative time, number of resected lymph nodes, or incidence of postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

SRAMIE is a feasible approach offering advantages over VAE in recovery and postoperative pain. The comparable perioperative outcomes suggest that SRAMIE may be a viable alternative to conventional MIE, warranting further large-scale studies.

Esophagectomy in patients with liver cirrhosis: systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes

Patients with esophageal cancer and concomitant liver cirrhosis (LC) pose a surgical challenge because of the increased risk of postoperative complications and mortality. Purpose of this study was to review the existing literature and estimate perioperative short-term outcomes of esophagectomy in this patient population. Systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were queried. The search was last updated on July 30th, 2024. Primary outcomes were anastomotic leak (AL) and 90 day mortality. Ten observational studies were included for a total of 387 patients with LC. The age of the included patients ranged from 35 to 85 years, 91.2% were males. The main causes of liver cirrhosis were alcoholic (75%) and viral hepatitis (20.4%). Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma was diagnosed in 58.7% of patients. Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis was reported in 69.9% of patients, while McKeown esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis was reported in 30.1% of patients. The estimated pooled prevalence of AL and 90-day mortality were 13% (95% CI = 6-24%; I2 = 72%) and 17% (95% CI = 10-27%; I2 = 72%), respectively. The estimated pooled prevalence of postoperative pulmonary complication, sepsis, and liver failure were 52% (95% CI = 39-65%), 30% (95% CI = 14-52%), and 9% (95% CI = 4-17%), respectively. Esophagectomy can be performed in properly selected patients with LC and concomitant esophageal cancer. Foregut surgeons should be aware of the not negligible postoperative complications rates and mortality. Risk stratification and attentive perioperative care are essential to minimize serious adverse events.

Does Indocyanine Green Utilization during Esophagectomy Prevent Anastomotic Leaks? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Indocyanine Green (ICG) is a promising technique for the assessment of gastric conduit and anastomosis perfusion during esophagectomy. ICG integration may be helpful in minimizing the risk of anastomotic leak (AL). Literature evidence is sparse, while the real effect of ICG assessment on AL minimization remains unsolved. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare short-term outcomes between ICG-guided and non-ICG-guided (nICG) esophagogastric anastomosis during esophagectomy for cancer. Materials and Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were queried up to 25 April 2024. Studies that reported short-term outcomes for ICG versus non-ICG-guided (nICG) anastomosis in patients undergoing esophagectomy were considered. Primary outcome was AL. Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were utilized as effect size measures, whereas to assess relative inference we used 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results: Overall, 1399 patients (11 observational studies) were included. Overall, 576 (41.2%) underwent ICG gastric conduit assessment. The patients' ages ranged from 22 to 91 years, with 73% being male. The cumulative incidence of AL was 10.4% for ICG and 15.4% for nICG. Compared to nICG, ICG utilization was related to a reduced risk for postoperative AL (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.23-0.99; p = 0.05). No differences were found in terms of pulmonary complications (RR 0.83), operative time (SMD -0.47), hospital length of stay (SMD -0.16), or 90-day mortality (RR 1.70). Conclusions: Our study seems to indicate a potential impact of ICG in reducing post-esophagectomy AL. However, because of limitations in the design of the included studies, allocation/reporting bias, variable definitions of AL, and heterogeneity in ICG use, caution is required to avoid potential overestimation of the ICG effect.

Long-Term Impact of Severe Postoperative Complications after Esophagectomy for Cancer: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Severe postoperative complications (SPCs) may occur after curative esophagectomy for cancer and are associated with prolonged hospital stay, augmented costs, and increased in-hospital mortality. However, the effect of SPCs on survival after esophagectomy is uncertain.

AIM

To assess the impact of severe postoperative complications (SPCs) on long-term survival following curative esophagectomy for cancer, we conducted a systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to December 2023. The included studies examined the relationship between SPCs and survival outcomes, defining SPCs as Clavien-Dindo grade > 3. The primary outcome measure was long-term overall survival (OS). We used restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to calculate pooled effect sizes. Additionally, we applied the GRADE methodology to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

Ten studies (2181 patients) were included. SPCs were reported in 651 (29.8%) patients. The RMSTD overall survival analysis shows that at 60-month follow-up, patients experiencing SPCs lived for 8.6 months (95% Cis -12.5, -4.7; p < 0.001) less, on average, compared with no-SPC patients. No differences were found for 60-month follow-up disease-free survival (-4.6 months, 95% CIs -11.9, 1.9; p = 0.17) and cancer-specific survival (-6.8 months, 95% CIs -11.9, 1.7; p = 0.21). The GRADE certainty of this evidence ranged from low to very low.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests a statistically significant detrimental effect of SPCs on OS in patients undergoing curative esophagectomy for cancer. Also, a clinical trend toward reduced CSS and DFS was perceived.

Short-term Outcomes of Different Techniques for Gastric Ischemic Preconditioning Before Esophagectomy: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ischemia at the anastomotic site plays a critical role determinant in the development of anastomosis-related complications after esophagectomy. Gastric ischemic conditioning (GIC) before esophagectomy has been described to improve the vascular perfusion at the tip of the gastric conduit with a potential effect on anastomotic leak (AL) and stenosis (AS) risk minimization. Laparoscopic (LapGIC) and angioembolization (AngioGIC) techniques have been reported.

PURPOSE

Compare short-term outcomes among different GIC techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic review and network meta-analysis. One-step esophagectomy (noGIC), LapGIC, and AngioGIC were compared. Primary outcomes were AL, AS, and gastric conduit necrosis (GCN). Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were used to assess relative inference.

RESULTS

Overall, 1760 patients (14 studies) were included. Of those, 1028 patients (58.4%) underwent noGIC, 593 (33.6%) LapGIC, and 139 (8%) AngioGIC. AL was reduced for LapGIC versus noGIC (RR=0.68; 95% CrI 0.47-0.98) and AngioGIC versus noGIC (RR=0.52; 95% CrI 0.31-0.93). Similarly, AS was reduced for LapGIC versus noGIC (RR=0.32; 95% CrI 0.12-0.68) and AngioGIC versus noGIC (RR=1.30; 95% CrI 0.65-2.46). The indirect comparison, assessed with the network methodology, did not show any differences for LapGIC versus AngioGIC in terms of postoperative AL and AS risk. No differences were found for GCN, pulmonary complications, overall complications, hospital length of stay, and 30-day mortality among different treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to noGIC, both LapGIC and AngioGIC before esophagectomy seem equivalent and associated with a reduced risk for postoperative AL and AS.

The impact of minimally-invasive esophagectomy operative duration on post-operative outcomes

Background

Esophagectomy, an esophageal cancer treatment mainstay, is a highly morbid procedure. Prolonged operative time, only partially predetermined by case complexity, may be uniquely harmful to minimally-invasive esophagectomy (MIE) patients for numerous reasons, including anastomotic leak, tenuous conduit perfusion and protracted single-lung ventilation, but the impact is unknown. This multi-center retrospective cohort study sought to characterize the relationship between MIE operative time and post-operative outcomes.

Methods

We abstracted multi-center data on esophageal cancer patients who underwent MIE from 2010 to 2021. Predictor variables included age, sex, comorbidities, body mass index, prior cardiothoracic surgery, stage, and neoadjuvant therapy. Outcomes included complications, readmissions, and mortality. Association analysis evaluated the relationship between predictor variables and operative time. Multivariate logistic regression characterized the influence of potential predictor variables and operative time on post-operative outcomes. Subgroup analysis evaluated the association between MIE >4 h vs. ≤4 h and complications, readmissions and survival.

Results

For the 297 esophageal cancer patients who underwent MIE between 2010 and 2021, the median operative duration was 4.8 h [IQR: 3.7-6.3]. For patients with anastomotic leak (5.1%) and 1-year mortality, operative duration was elevated above the median at 6.3 h [IQR: 4.8-8.6], p = 0.008) and 5.3 h [IQR: 4.4-6.8], p = 0.04), respectively. In multivariate logistic regression, each additional hour of operative time increased the odds of anastomotic leak and 1-year mortality by 39% and 19%, respectively.

Conclusions

Esophageal cancer is a poor prognosis disease, even with optimal treatment. Operative efficiency, a modifiable surgical variable, may be an important target to improve MIE patient outcomes.

Effect of Anastomotic Leak on Long-Term Survival After Esophagectomy: Multivariate Meta-analysis and Restricted Mean Survival Times Examination

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak (AL) is a serious complication after esophagectomy. It is associated with prolonged hospital stay, increased costs, and increased risk for 90-day mortality. Controversy exists concerning the impact of AL on survival. This study was designed to investigate the effect of AL on long-term survival after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through October 30, 2022. The included studies evaluated the effect of AL on long-term survival. Primary outcome was long-term overall survival. Restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD), hazard ratio (HR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as pooled effect size measures.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies (7118 patients) were included. Overall, 727 (10.2%) patients experienced AL. The RMSTD analysis shows that at 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months, patients not experiencing AL live an average of 0.7 (95% CI 0.2-1.2; p < 0.001), 1.9 (95% CI 1.1-2.6; p < 0.001), 2.6 (95% CI 1.6-3.7; p < 0.001), 3.4 (95% CI 1.9-4.9; p < 0.001), and 4.2 (95% CI 2.1-6.4; p < 0.001) months longer compared with those with AL, respectively. The time-dependent HRs analysis for AL versus no AL shows a higher mortality hazard in patients with AL at 3 (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.54-2.34), 6 (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.39-1.75), 12 (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.24-1.54), and 24 months (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02-1.31).

CONCLUSIONS

This study seems to suggest a modest clinical impact of AL on long-term OS after esophagectomy. Patients who experience AL seem to have a higher mortality hazard during the first 2 years of follow-up.

Effect of gastric ischemic conditioning prior to esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

Ischemia at the anastomotic site is thought to be a protagonist in the development of anastomosis-related complications while different strategies to overcome this problem have been reported. Gastric ischemic conditioning (GIC) prior to esophagectomy has been described with this intent. Evaluate the effect of GIC on anastomotic complications after esophagectomy. Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PubMed were investigated up to March 31st, 2023. We considered articles that appraised short-term outcomes after GIC vs. no GIC in patients undergoing esophagectomy. Anastomotic leak (AL), anastomotic stricture (AS), and gastric conduit necrosis (GCN) were primary outcomes. Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were used to calculate related inference. Fourteen studies (1760 patients) were included. Of those, 732 (41.6%) underwent GIC, while 1028 (58.4%) underwent one-step esophagectomy. Compared with no GIC, GIC was related to a reduced RR for AL (R RR = 0.63; 95% CI 0.47-0.86; p < 0.01) and AS (RR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.29-0.91; p = 0.02), whereas no differences were found for GCN (RR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.19-1.61; p = 0.28). Postoperative pneumonia (RR = 1.09; p = 0.99), overall complications (RR = 0.87; p = 0.19), operative time (SMD - 0.58; p = 0.07), hospital stay (SMD 0.66; p = 0.09), and 30-day mortality (RR = 0.69; p = 0.22) were comparable. GIC prior to esophagectomy seems associated with a reduced risk for AL and AS. Further studies are necessary to identify the subset of patients who can benefit from this procedure, the optimal technique, and the timing of GIC prior to esophagectomy.

Short-term outcomes of different esophagojejunal anastomotic techniques during laparoscopic total gastrectomy: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Different techniques have been described for esophagojejunostomy (EJ) during laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) for gastric cancer. Linear stapled techniques include overlap (OL) and functional end-to-end anastomosis (FEEA) while single staple technique (SST), hemi-double staple technique (HDST), and OrVil® are circular stapled approaches. Nowadays, the choice among techniques for EJ depends on operating surgeon personal preference.

PURPOSE

To compare short-term outcomes of different EJ techniques during LTG.

METHODS

Systematic review and network meta-analysis. OL, FEEA, SST, HDST, and OrVil® were compared. Primary outcomes were anastomotic leak (AL) and stenosis (AS). Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% credible intervals (CrI) were used to measure relative inference.

RESULTS

Overall, 3177 patients (20 studies) were included. The technique for EJ was SST (n = 1026; 32.9%), OL (n = 826; 26.5%), FEEA (n = 752; 24.1%), OrVil® (n = 317; 10.1%), and HDST (n = 196; 6.4%). AL was comparable for OL vs. FEEA (RR = 0.82; 95% CrI 0.47-1.49), OL vs. SST (RR = 0.55; 95% CrI 0.27-1.21), OL vs. OrVil® (RR = 0.54; 95% CrI 0.32-1.22), and OL vs. HDST (RR = 0.65; 95% CrI 0.28-1.63). Similarly, AS was similar for OL vs. FEEA (RR = 0.46; 95% CrI 0.18-1.28), OL vs. SST (RR = 0.89; 95% CrI 0.39-2.15), OL vs. OrVil® (RR = 0.36; 95% CrI 0.14-1.02), and OL vs. HDST (RR = 0.61; 95% CrI 0.31-1.21). Anastomotic bleeding, time to soft diet resumption, pulmonary complications, hospital length of stay, and mortality were comparable while operative time was reduced for FEEA.

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis shows similar postoperative AL and AS risk when comparing OL, FEEA, SST, HDST, and OrVil® techniques. Similarly, no differences were found for anastomotic bleeding, operative time, soft diet resumption, pulmonary complications, hospital length of stay and 30-day mortality.

Linear- Versus Circular-Stapled Esophagojejunostomy During Total Gastrectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: While numerous techniques have been defined for esophagojejunostomy (EJ) during total gastrectomy including hand-sewn and stapled anastomoses, mechanical linear-stapled (LS) and circular-stapled (CS) anastomoses are widely adopted. However, there are scarce data on the optimal stapled technique for EJ during total gastrectomy. Materials and Methods: Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PubMed were investigated up to October 30, 2022. We considered articles that appraised short-term outcomes after LS versus CS anastomosis in patients undergoing total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Anastomotic leak (AL), anastomotic stricture (AS), and anastomotic bleeding (AB) were primary outcomes. Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were used as pooled effect size measures, whereas 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were used to calculate related inference. Results: Sixteen studies (3156 patients) were incorporated. Overall, 1540 (48.8%) underwent CS, whereas 1616 (51.2%) underwent LS. Compared with CS, LS was related to a condensed RR for AS (RR: 0.27; 95% CI 0.15-0.49; P < .01), whereas no differences were found for AL (RR: 0.75; 95% CI 0.51-1.10; P = .14) and AB (RR: 0.59; 95% CI 0.24-1.44; P = .25). Postoperative pneumonia (RR: 0.98; P = .94), operative time (SMD: 0.51; P = .31), days to soft diet (SMD: -0.08; P = .36), hospital stay (SMD: 0.19; P = .46), and 30-day mortality (RR: 1.76; P = .31) were comparable between LS and CS. Conclusions: For EJ during total gastrectomy, our results suggest that LS seems related to a reduced risk of AS compared with CS, although no significant differences were found for the risk of AL and AB between the two techniques. Clinical Trial Registration number: CRD42022381221.

Impact of postoperative NSAIDs administration on anastomotic leak after esophago-gastric surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

Anastomotic leak (AL) is a feared complication of esophago-gastric surgery. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used to treat postoperative pain. Previous analyses conveyed heterogeneous data for colorectal surgery with a tendency toward high risk for AL after NSAIDs administration. In the setting of upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgery data are even more puzzled. The purpose of the present study was to assess whether an association exists between postoperative NSAIDs administration and AL after esophago-gastric surgery. PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched up to November 2022. The included studies evaluated outcomes for NSAIDs vs. no NSAIDs administration after esophago-gastric surgery. The primary outcome was anastomotic leak (AL). Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used to assess pooled effect size and relative inference. Six studies (43,784 patients) were included. The patient age ranged from 31 to 84 years, 82.4% were males and preoperative BMI ranged from 15 to 31 kg/m². Esophagectomy was performed in 95% of patients. NSAIDs were administered in 18,075 (41.3%) patients. The cumulative incidence of AL was similar for NSAIDs vs. no NSAIDs (13.6% vs. 13.4%). The risk for postoperative AL was similar for NSAIDs vs. no NSAIDs administration (RR 1.49; 95% CI 0.81-2.75; p = 0.19). The cumulative incidence of postoperative gastrointestinal bleeding (0.36% vs. 0.39%), acute kidney injury (0.62% vs. 0.71%), and in-hospital mortality (2.39% vs. 2.66%) were comparable. NSAIDs administration for postoperative analgesia seems not associated with an increased risk for AL after esophago-gastric surgery.