Laparoscopically assisted transhiatal resection for malignancies of the distal esophagus

Major Postoperative Complications in Esophageal Cancer After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Compared With Open Esophagectomy: An Updated Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the existing literature comparing cardiopulmonary complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with open esophagectomy (OE) and conduct a meta-analysis based on the relevant studies.

METHODS

A systematic search for articles was performed in Medline, Embase, Wiley Online Library, and the Cochrane Library. The relative risks or odds ratios (ORs) were calculated by using fixed or random-effects models. The I² and X² tests were used to test for statistical heterogeneity. We performed a metaregression for the pulmonary complications with the adenocarcinoma proportion and tumor stage. Publication bias and small-study effects were assessed using Egger's test and Begg's funnel plot.

RESULTS

A total of 30,850 participants were enrolled in the 63 studies evaluated in the meta-analysis. Arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism, pulmonary complications, gastric tip necrosis, anastomotic leakage, and vocal cord palsy were chosen as outcomes. The occurrence rate of arrhythmia was significantly lower in patients receiving MIE than in patients receiving OE (OR = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.53-0.89), with heterogeneity (I² = 30.7%, P = 0.067). The incidence of pulmonary complications was significantly lower in patients receiving MIE (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.45-0.63) but heterogeneity remained (I² = 72.1%, P = 0.000). The risk of gastric tip necrosis (OR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.07-2.05) after OE was lower than that after MIE. Anastomotic leakage, pulmonary embolism, and vocal cord palsy showed no significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

MIE has advantages over OE, especially in reducing the incidence of arrhythmia and pulmonary complications. Thus, MIE can be recommended as the preferred alternative surgery method for resectable esophageal cancer.

Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive and robotic-assisted esophagectomy

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has demonstrated superior outcomes compared to open approaches. The myriad of techniques has precluded the recommendation of a standard approach. The addition of robotics to esophageal resection has potential benefits. We sought to examine the outcomes with MIE to include robotics.

METHODS

Utilizing a prospective esophagectomy database, we identified patients who underwent (MIE) Ivor Lewis via thoracoscopic/laparoscopic (TL), transhiatal (TH), or robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis (RAIL). Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and complications were analyzed via ANOVA, χ², and Fisher exact where appropriate.

RESULTS

We identified 302 patients who underwent MIE: TL 95 (31.5%), TH 63 (20.8%), and RAIL 144 (47.7%) with a mean age of 65 ± 9.6. The length of operation was longer in the RAIL: TL (299 ± 87), TH (231 ± 65), RAIL (409 ± 104 min), p < 0.001. However, the EBL was lower in the patients undergoing transthoracic approaches (RAIL + TL): TL (189 ± 188 ml), TH (242 ± 380 ml), RAIL (155 ± 107 ml), p = 0.03. Conversion to open was also lower in these patients: TL 7 (7.4%), TH 8 (12.7%), RAIL 0, p < 0.001. The R0 resection rate and lymph node (LN) harvest also favored the RAIL cohort: TL 86 (93.5%), TH 60 (96.8%), and RAIL 144 (100%), p = 0.01; LN: TL 14 ± 7, TH 9 ± 6, and RAIL 20 ± 9, p < 0.001. The overall morbidity was lower in MIE patients that underwent a transthoracic approach vs. transhiatal: TL 29 (30.5%), TH 39 (61.9%), RAIL 34 (23.6%), p < 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing MIE via thoracoscopic/laparoscopic and robotic transthoracic approaches demonstrated lower EBL, morbidity, and conversion to open compared to the transhiatal approach. Additionally the oncologic outcomes measured by R0 resections and LN harvest also favored the patients who underwent a transthoracic approach.

Liver Function, Quantified by LiMAx Test, After Major Abdominal Surgery. Comparison Between Open and Laparoscopic Approach

INTRODUCTION

Major abdominal surgery may lead to a systemic inflammatory response (SIRS) with a risk of organ failure. One possible trigger for a postoperative hepatic dysfunction is an altered hepatic blood flow during SIRS, resulting in a decreased oxygen delivery. This pilot study investigated the role of liver dysfunction measured by the LiMAx test after major abdominal surgery, focussing on open and laparoscopic surgical approaches.

METHODS

We prospectively investigated 25 patients (7 females and 18 males, age range 55-72 years) scheduled for upper abdominal surgery. The LiMAx test, ICG-PDR and duplex sonography were carried out preoperatively, followed by postoperative days (PODs) 1, 3, 5 and 10. Laboratory parameters and clinical parameters were measured daily. Clinical outcome parameters were examined at the end of treatment. The population was divided into group A (laparotomy) versus group B (laparoscopy).

RESULTS

LiMAx values decreased significantly on POD 1 (290 µg/kg/h, P < 0.001), followed by a significant increase at POD 3 (348 µg/kg/h, P = 0.013). Only INR showed a significant increase on POD 1 (1.26, P < 0.001). Duplex sonography and ICG-PDR revealed a hyper-dynamic liver blood flow. No differences between group A and B were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Hepatic dysfunction after major abdominal surgery is evident and underestimated. The LiMAx test provides an adequate tool to determine liver dysfunction. Open and laparoscopic approaches appeared similar in terms of liver dysfunction and postoperative SIRS.

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

Background

Open esophagectomy (OE) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) reduces complications in resectable esophageal cancer. The aim of this study is to explore the superiority of MIO in reducing complications and in-hospital mortality than OE.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Wanfang, and Wiley Online Library were thoroughly searched. Odds ratio (OR)/weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess the strength of association.

Results

Fifty-seven studies containing 15,790 cases of resectable esophageal cancer were included. MIO had less intraoperative blood loss, short hospital stay, and high operative time (P < 0.05) than OE. MIO also had reduced incidence of total complications; (OR = 0.700, 95% CI = 0.626 ~ 0.781, P_V < 0.05), pulmonary complications (OR = 0.527, 95% CI = 0431 ~ 0.645, P_V < 0.05), cardiovascular complications (OR = 0.770, 95% CI = 0.681 ~ 0.872, P_V < 0.05), and surgical technology related (STR) complications (OR = 0.639, 95% CI = 0.522 ~ 0.781, P_V < 0.05), as well as lower in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.668, 95% CI = 0.539 ~ 0.827, P_V < 0.05). However, the number of harvested lymph nodes, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, gastrointestinal complications, anastomotic leak (AL), and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (RLNP) had no significant difference.

Conclusions

MIO is superior to OE in terms of perioperative complications and in-hospital mortality.

Laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the preferred treatment for resectable oesophageal cancers, and can be performed in different ways. Transhiatal oesophagectomy (oesophagectomy without thoracotomy, with a cervical anastomosis) is one way to resect oesophageal cancers. It can be performed laparoscopically or by open method. With other organs, laparoscopic surgery has been shown to reduce complications and length of hospital stay compared to open surgery. However, concerns remain about the safety of laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy in terms of post-operative complications and oncological clearance compared with open transhiatal oesophagectomy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic versus open oesophagectomy for people with oesophageal cancer undergoing transhiatal oesophagectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We electronically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers until August 2015. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies comparing laparoscopic with open transhiatal oesophagectomy in patients with resectable oesophageal cancer, regardless of language, blinding, or publication status for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently identified trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), using both fixed-effect and random-effects models, with RevMan 5, based on intention-to-treat analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no randomised controlled trials on this topic. We included six non-randomised studies (five retrospective) that compared laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy (334 patients: laparoscopic = 154 patients; open = 180 patients); five studies (326 patients: laparoscopic = 151 patients; open = 175 patients) provided information for one or more outcomes. Most studies included a mixture of adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma and different stages of oesophageal cancer, without metastases. All the studies were at unclear or high risk of bias; the overall quality of evidence was very low for all the outcomes.The differences between laparoscopic and open transhiatal oesophagectomy were imprecise for short-term mortality (laparoscopic = 0/151 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 0.5%) versus open = 2/175 (1.1%); RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.05 to 4.09; participants = 326; studies = 5; I² = 0%); long-term mortality (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; participants = 193; studies = 2; I² = 0%); anastomotic stenosis (laparoscopic = 4/36 (11.1%) versus open = 3/37 (8.1%); RR 1.37; 95% CI 0.33 to 5.70; participants = 73; studies = 1); short-term recurrence (laparoscopic = 1/16 (6.3%) versus open = 0/4 (0%); RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.04 to 18.47; participants = 20; studies = 1); long-term recurrence (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18; participants = 173; studies = 2); proportion of people who required blood transfusion (laparoscopic = 0/36 (0%) versus open = 6/37 (16.2%); RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.00 to 1.35; participants = 73; studies = 1); proportion of people with positive resection margins (laparoscopic = 15/102 (15.8%) versus open = 27/111 (24.3%); RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.12; participants = 213; studies = 3; I² = 0%); and the number of lymph nodes harvested during surgery (median difference between the groups varied from 12 less to 3 more lymph nodes in the laparoscopic compared to the open group; participants = 326; studies = 5).The proportion of patients with serious adverse events was lower in the laparoscopic group (10/99, (10.3%) compared to the open group = 24/114 (21.1%); RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.99; participants = 213; studies = 3; I² = 0%); as it was for adverse events in the laparoscopic group = 37/99 (39.9%) versus the open group = 71/114 (62.3%); RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.86; participants = 213; studies = 3; I² = 0%); and the median lengths of hospital stay were significantly less in the laparoscopic group than the open group (three days less in all three studies that reported this outcome; number of participants = 266). There was lack of clarity as to whether the median difference in the quantity of blood transfused was statistically significant favouring laparoscopic oesophagectomy in the only study that reported this information. None of the studies reported post-operative dysphagia, health-related quality of life, time-to-return to normal activity (return to pre-operative mobility without caregiver support), or time-to-return to work.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are currently no randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic with open transhiatal oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancers. In observational studies, laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy is associated with fewer overall complications and shorter hospital stays than open transhiatal oesophagectomy. However, this association is unlikely to be causal. There is currently no information to determine a causal association in the differences between the two surgical approaches. Randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy with other methods of oesophagectomy are required to determine the optimal method of oesophagectomy.

Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Compared with open esophagectomy (OE), minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) proves to have clear benefits in reducing the risk of pulmonary complications for patients with resectable esophageal cancer. The objectives of our study were to explore the superiority of MIE in reducing the occurrence of anastomotic leakages (ALs) when compared to OE.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the superiority of MIE on the occurrence of ALs over OE, by searching many sources (through December, 2014) such as Medline, Embase, Wiley Online Library, and Cochrane Library. Fixed-effects model was used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) to quantify associations between OE and MIE groups. Cochran’s Q and I² statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity among studies.

Results

Among a total of 43 studies involving 5537 patients included in the meta-analysis, 2527 (45.6 %) cases underwent MIE and 3010 (54.4 %) cases underwent OE. Compared to patients undergoing OE, patients undergoing MIE did not have statistical significance in reduced occurrence of ALs (OR = 0.97, 95 % CI = 0.80–1.17). Insignificant reduced occurrence of ALs was not associated with anastomotic location (OR = 0.90, 95 % CI = 0.71–1.13) or anastomotic procedure (OR = 1.02, 95 % CI = 0.79–1.30).

Conclusions

More proofs are needed to clarify the strengths or weaknesses of MIE in preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer. A largely randomized, controlled trial should be undertaken to resolve this contentious issue urgently.

Superiority of Minimally Invasive Oesophagectomy in Reducing In-Hospital Mortality of Patients with Resectable Oesophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Compared with open oesophagectomy (OE), minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) proves to have benefits in reducing the risk of pulmonary complications for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. However, it is unknown whether MIO has superiority in reducing the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM).

Objective

The objective of this meta-analysis was to explore the effect of MIO vs. OE on the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM).

Data Sources

Sources such as Medline (through December 31, 2014), Embase (through December 31, 2014), Wiley Online Library (through December 31, 2014), and the Cochrane Library (through December 31, 2014) were searched.

Study Selection

Data of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials related to MIO versus OE were included.

Interventions

Eligible studies were those that reported patients who underwent MIO procedure. The control group included patients undergoing conventional OE.

Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods

Fixed or random -effects models were used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) or relative risks (RRs) for quantification of associations. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated by using Cochran’s Q and I² statistics.

Results

A total of 48 studies involving 14,311 cases of resectable oesophageal cancer were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to patients undergoing OE, patients undergoing MIO had statistically reduced occurrence of IHM (OR=0.69, 95%CI =0.55 -0.86). Patients undergoing MIO also had significantly reduced incidence of pulmonary complications (PCs) (RR=0.73, 95%CI = 0.63-0.86), pulmonary embolism (PE) (OR=0.71, 95%CI= 0.51-0.99) and arrhythmia (OR=0.79, 95%CI = 0.68-0.92). Non-significant reductions were observed among the included studies in the occurrence of anastomotic leak (AL) (OR=0.93, 95%CI =0.78-1.11), or Gastric Tip Necrosis (GTN) (OR=0.89, 95%CI =0.54-1.49).

Limitation

Most of the included studies were non-randomized case-control studies, with a diversity of study designs, demographics of participants and surgical intervention.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) has superiority over open oesophagectomy (OE) in terms of the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM) and should be the first-choice surgical procedure in esophageal surgery.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic total gastrectomy with regional lymph node dissection for advanced gastric cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Laparoscopic-assisted distal gastrectomy has been applied to the treatment of gastric cancer. However, there have been few reports on the laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer, mainly because of the difficulty of the procedure.

METHODS

Here, we report a series of cases where the hand-assisted laparoscopic total gastrectomies with regional lymph node dissection were performed successfully.

RESULTS

The average operative time was 245 minutes. The mean blood loss was 110 mL. The number of dissected lymph nodes per patient was beyond 15 nodes satisfying a reliable evaluation of nodal status. All resection specimens had no residual tumor at the proximal or distal resection margins. The mean oral feeding was 3.6 days. The mean postoperative length of stay was 8.7 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The hand-assisted laparoscopic D2 total gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer is both technically feasible and safe.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy with a systematic procedure for en bloc infracarinal lymph node dissection

Laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy is a minimally invasive approach for esophageal cancer. However, a transhiatal procedure has not yet been established for en bloc mediastinal dissection. The purpose of this study was to present our novel procedure, hand-assisted laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy, with a systematic procedure for en bloc mediastinal dissection. The perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent this procedure were retrospectively analyzed. Transhiatal subtotal mobilization of the thoracic esophagus with en bloc lymph node dissection distally from the carina was performed according to a standardized procedure using a hand-assisted laparoscopic technique, in which the operator used a long sealing device under appropriate expansion of the operative field by hand assistance and long retractors. The thoracoscopic procedure was performed for upper mediastinal dissection following esophageal resection and retrosternal stomach roll reconstruction, and was avoided based on the nodal status and operative risk. A total of 57 patients underwent surgery between January 2012 and June 2013, and the transthoracic procedure was performed on 34 of these patients. In groups with and without the transthoracic procedure, total operation times were 370 and 216 minutes, blood losses were 238 and 139 mL, and the numbers of retrieved nodes were 39 and 24, respectively. R0 resection rates were similar between the groups. The incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy was significantly higher in the group with the transthoracic procedure, whereas no significant differences were observed in that of pneumonia between these groups. The hand-assisted laparoscopic transhiatal method, which is characterized by a systematic procedure for en bloc mediastinal dissection supported by hand and long device use, was safe and feasible for minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancer: review of the literature and institutional experience

BACKGROUND

Esophageal cancer represents a major public health problem in the world. Several minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) techniques have been described and represent a safe alternative for the surgical management of esophageal cancer in selected centers with high volume and surgeons experienced in minimally invasive procedures.

METHODS

The authors reviewed the most recent and largest studies published in the medical literature that reported the outcomes for MIE techniques.

RESULTS

In larger series, MIE has proven to be equivalent in postoperative morbidity and mortality to the open esophagectomy. However, MIE has been associated with less blood loss, reduced postoperative pain, decreased time in the intensive care unit, and shortened length of hospital stay compared with the conventional open approaches. Despite limited data, no significant difference in survival stage for stage has been observed between open esophagectomy and MIE.

CONCLUSIONS

The myriad of MIE techniques complicates the debate for defining the optimal surgical approach for the treatment of esophageal cancer. Randomized controlled trials comparing MIE with conventional open esophagectomy are needed to clarify the ideal procedure with the lowest postoperative morbidity, best quality of life after surgery, and long-term survival.

Outcomes following laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Most published minimally invasive esophagectomy techniques involve a multiple field approach, including laparoscopic and thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization. Laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy (LTE) should potentially reduce the complications associated with thoracotomy. This study aims to compare outcomes of LTE with open transhiatal esophagectomy (OTE) and en-bloc esophagectomy (EBE).

METHODS

Retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who had an LTE for cancer between July 2008 and July 2012 at our institution. Data was compared with an historic cohort of patients who underwent OTE and EBE at the same institution from July 2002 to July 2008.

RESULTS

There were 33 patients with LTE, compared with 60 patients with OTE and 139 with EBE. The presence of minor operative complications was similar (p = 0.36), but major complications were significantly less common in the LTE group (12, 23 and 33 %, respectively; p = 0.04). The median number of blood transfusions during hospitalization was significantly lower in the LTE group (0, 2.5 and 3, respectively; p = 0.005). Median tumor size was significantly smaller (1.5, 2.2, and 3 cm, respectively; p = 0.03), but the LTE group had a significantly higher percentage of patients with neoadjuvant treatment (39, 14 and 29 %, respectively; p = 0.008). Median lymph node yield for LTE was lower (24, 36 and 48, respectively; p < 0.0001), but the percentage of patients with positive nodes was similar (33, 33 and 39 %, respectively; p = 0.69). Mortality was equivalent among the groups (0, 2 and 4 %, respectively; p = 0.38). The median LOS for the LTE group was significantly lower (10, 13 and 15 days, respectively; p < 0.0001). Overall survival was not different between the three groups (p = 0.65), with median survival at 24 months of 70, 65 and 65 %, respectively.

CONCLUSION

LTE can be performed safely with less major complications and shorter hospital stay than open esophagectomy. The reduced lymph-node harvest did not impact overall survival.

A critical review of minimally invasive esophagectomy

The advent of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) attempts to decrease postoperative complications and mortality for this high-risk procedure. This review examines techniques in MIE, associated outcomes, and offers a critical appraisal of the literature surrounding this procedure. A Pubmed search was conducted for "minimally invasive esophagectomy" and associated synonyms. In addition, we analyze the outcomes at our institution through a prospectively maintained database. With varied techniques and utilization of different endpoints it is difficult to draw concrete conclusions from the current literature. Overall, however, there is no strong trend toward deceased mortality or decreased pulmonary complications from MIE, but there is a trend toward decreased intraoperative blood loss and shorter intensive care unit and ward stays. Until future studies are completed, MIE remains a useful tool in the armamentarium of the esophageal surgeon, and should be used not in exclusion of other approaches should patient or tumor factors dictate otherwise.

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open surgery: is there an advantage?

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal resection is the main method of curative treatment for cancer of the oesophagus. Despite advances in surgical technology and postoperative care, the survival rate and prognosis of people undergoing oesophagectomy is still poor. The use of minimally invasive techniques in oesophageal surgery offers hope of reduced recovery time due to a reduction in surgical trauma. Although the first reports of thoracoscopy- and laparoscopy-assisted oesophagectomy emerged some 20 years ago, there is still no consensus that the outcomes are clearly superior to outcomes following conventional open surgery. Increasingly, some surgeons promote the use of minimally invasive techniques for oesophagectomy but questions remain over its safety and efficacy compared with open surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature to compare minimally invasive techniques for oesophagectomy to open surgery. The outcomes of interest for efficacy and safety included mortality, operative complications, recurrence, and quality of life.

RESULTS

There were 28 included comparative studies. No randomised controlled studies (RCTs) were available and therefore the data need to be interpreted with caution.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations for future research are discussed. We argue that it is difficult to conduct an RCT for this procedure due to ethical considerations and suggest ways that future nonrandomised studies could be improved.

Does minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) provide for comparable oncologic outcomes to open techniques? A systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to compare minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open techniques with respect to oncologic outcomes through analysis of the extent of lymph node clearance, number of lymph nodes retrieved, oncologic stage, and 5-year mortality.

METHODOLOGY

A systematic review of the literature review was conducted using MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases (1950-2011), and evaluated all comparative studies. Comparison between the open and MIE/hybrid MIE (HMIE) groups was possible with data being available for direct comparison.

RESULTS

After careful review, 17 case-control studies with 1,586 patients having an esophagectomy were included in this systematic review. The median (range) number of lymph nodes found in the MIE, open and HMIE groups were 16 (5.7-33.90), 10 (3-32.80) and 17 (17-17.15), of which there was significance between the MIE and open groups (p=0.03) but not significant between MIE versus HMIE (p=0.25). There was no statistical significance in pathologic stage between open, MIE and HMIE groups. Generally, there were good short-term (30 day) survival rates between all three groups. The open group had 5-year survival rates between 16% and 57% compared to the MIE group 12.5%-63% (p=0.33). Overall 5-year survival was found to be not significant between open group and MIE (p=0.93). MIE does not appear on statistical evidence to present any survival advantage.

CONCLUSION

The evidence of this study suggests that MIE is equivalent to standard open esophagectomy in achieving similar oncological outcomes. Further randomised controlled trials are required to provide for a higher level of evidence.

Open or minimally invasive resection for oesophageal cancer?

Oesophagectomy is one of the most challenging surgical operations. Potential for morbidity and mortality is high. Minimally invasive techniques have been introduced in an attempt to reduce postoperative complications and recovery times. Debate continues over whether these techniques decrease morbidity and whether the quality of the oncological resection is compromised. Globally, minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) has been shown to be feasible and safe, with outcomes similar to open oesophagectomy. There are no controlled trials comparing the outcomes of MIO with open techniques, just a few comparative studies and many single institution series from which assessments of the current role of MIO have been made. The reported improvements of MIO include reduced blood loss, shortened time in high dependency care and decreased length of hospital stay. In comparative studies there is no clear reduction in respiratory complications, although larger series suggest that MIO may have a benefit. Although MIO approaches report less lymph node retrieval compared with open extended lymphadenectomy, MIO cancer outcomes are comparable. MIO will be a major component of the future oesophageal surgeons' armamentarium, but should continue to be carefully assessed. Randomized trials comparing MIO versus open resection in oesophageal cancer are urgently needed: two phase III trials are recruiting, the TIME and the MIRO trials.

Thoracoscopic resection for esophageal cancer: A review of literature

Esophageal resection remains the only curative option in high grade dysplasia of the Barrett esophagus and non metastasized esophageal cancer. In addition, it may also be an adequate treatment in selected cases of benign disease. A wide variety of minimally invasive procedures have become available in esophageal surgery. Aim of the present review article is to evaluate minimally invasive procedures for esophageal resection, especially the approach performed through right thoracoscopy.

Modified Thoracoscopic versus Minimally Invasive Oesophagectomy in Curative Resection of Oesophageal Cancer

Conventional thoracoscopic oesophagectomy is time-consuming and requires sophisticated endoscopic skills. To reduce these problems we have modified the operating procedure, first by anastomosis of the oesophagus with the tubular stomach pulled up via the retrosternal route, followed by thoracoscopic oesophagectomy (modified thoracoscopic oesophagectomy). Outcomes were compared between the modified procedure and minimally invasive oesophagectomy. There were no significant differences in general preoperative clinical characteristics between the two patient groups. The modified thoracoscopic oesophagectomy group had significantly lower hospitalization expenses, significantly shorter operation times and significantly more lymph nodes removed compared with the minimally invasive oesophagectomy group, but there were no significant group differences in lengths of hospital and intensive care unit stays, morbidity and mortality. These results indicate that modified thoracoscopic oesophagectomy is feasible, simplifies operating procedures and reduces hospitalization expenses with acceptable morbidity.

Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy: meta-analysis of outcomes

BACKGROUND

A meta-analysis of the current literature was performed to compare the perioperative outcome measures and oncological impact between minimally invasive and open esophagectomy.

METHODS

Using the electronic databases Medline, Embase, Pubmed and the Cochrane Library, we performed a meta-analysis pooling the effects of outcomes of 1,008 patients enrolled into eight comparative studies, using classic and modern meta-analytic methods.

RESULTS

Two comparisons were considered for this systematic review: (I) open thoracotomy vs. VATS/laparoscopy esophagectomy and (II) open thoracotomy vs. VATS esophagectomy. In comparison I: both procedures report equally comparable outcomes (removed lymph nodes, 30-day mortality, 3-year survival) with the exception of overall morbidity (P = 0.038; in favor of the MIE arm) and anastomotic stricture (P < 0.001; in favor of the open thoracotomy arm). In comparison II: No differences were noted between treatment arms concerning postoperative outcomes and survival.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, both arms were comparable with regard to perioperative results and prognosis. Further prospective comparative or randomized-controlled trials focusing on the oncological impact of MIE are needed.

Esophagectomy without mortality: what can surgeons do?

INTRODUCTION

Surgical resection remains the mainstay treatment for patients with localized esophageal cancer. It is, however, a complex procedure. Mortality rate used to be high, but in recent years, death rate has been reduced to below 5% in specialized centers.

METHODS

Outcome of esophagectomy can be improved by paying attention to (1) appropriate patient section, (2) choice of surgical techniques and their execution, and (3) optimizing perioperative care. A volume-outcome relationship is also evident. Surgeons can perform esophagectomy without mortality, but a multi-disciplinary team management is essential to achieve this goal.

Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Open esophagectomy for cancer is a major oncological procedure, associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Recently, thoracoscopic procedures have offered a potentially advantageous alternative because of less operative trauma compared with thoracotomy. The aim of this study was to utilize meta-analysis to compare outcomes of open esophagectomy with those of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE).

METHODS

Literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases for comparative studies assessing different techniques of esophagectomy. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed. Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day mortality and anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes included operative outcomes, other postoperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes in terms of lymph nodes retrieved.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were included in the analysis. Studies included a total of 672 patients for MIE and HMIE, and 612 for open esophagectomy. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality; however, MIE had lower blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and reduced total morbidity and respiratory complications. For all other outcomes, there was no significant difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is a safe alternative to the open technique. Patients undergoing MIE may benefit from shorter hospital stay, and lower respiratory complications and total morbidity compared with open esophagectomy. Multicenter, prospective large randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these findings in order to base practice on sound clinical evidence.

Minimally invasive oesophageal resection for distal oesophageal cancer: A review of the literature

Oesophagus resection is adequate treatment for some benign oesophageal diseases, especially caustic and peptic stenosis and end-stage motility dysfunction. However, the most frequent indications for oesophageal resection are the high-grade dysplasia of Barrett oesophagus and non-metastasized oesophageal cancer. Different procedures have been developed for performing oesophageal resection given the 5-year survival rate of only 18% among patients operated on. A disadvantage of the conventional approach is the high morbidity rate, especially with pulmonary complications. Minimally invasive oesophageal resections, which were first performed in 1991, may reduce this important morbidity and preserve the oncologic outcome. The first reports of morbidity and respiratory complications with this approach were disappointing and it seemed likely that the procedure would have to be abandoned. However, in the past 5 years, Japanese groups and the group of Luketich in Pittsburgh have given these techniques an important impetus. The outcomes of the new series are different from those in the beginning period, and are leading to an enormous expansion worldwide. Important factors behind the change are standardization of the operative technique, the experience of many surgeons with more advanced laparoscopic procedures, important improvements in instruments for dissection and division of tissues, a better technique in use of anaesthesia, and a better selection of patients for operation. Two minimally invasive techniques are being perfected: the three-stage operation by right thoracoscopy and laparoscopy, and the transhiatal laparoscopic approach. The former may be applied successfully for any tumour in the oesophagus, whereas the latter seems ideal for distal oesophageal and oesophagogastric junction tumours. This review article discusses all these aspects, giving special attention to indications and operative technique.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy: a comparative study of transhiatal laparoscopic approach versus laparoscopic right transthoracic esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

The development of minimally invasive surgery gave birth to an interest in a mini-invasive approach to esophageal cancer; however, it is still considered to be one of the most complex gastrointestinal surgical operations, and many questions still remain unanswered, regarding the oncologic results of a mini-invasive approach in long-term follow-ups. Here, the authors report on the short-term and long-term results of a series of laparoscopic esophagectomies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2002 to March 2006, 22 nonrandomized patients were recruited to undergo an esophagectomy for neoplastic disease. The esophagectomy and esophagogastroplasty were carried out using the laparoscopic transhiatal technique in 9 patients; whereas, a combined laparoscopic and right-transthoracic incision was performed in the other 13 patients.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 21+/-3.23 months (mean+/-SD); range, 2 to 46 months. The overall survival rate resulted 84.0% at 12 months, 61.3% at 24 months, and 51.0% at 36 months. The proportions of cumulative survival showed significant differences when the following variables were considered: site of neoplasm (lower esophagus), American Society of Anesthesiologists 2, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type of surgical procedure, and inclusion in neoadjuvant protocol and staging. Recurrence rates were 3 (25%) in the radio-chemotherapy-treated group, and 5 (50%) in the primary surgery group (P=n.s.).

CONCLUSIONS

The two-year survival rates (61.3%) recorded in our series are comparable with those reported in other series of both laparoscopic and open surgeries. The logical conclusion was that a less invasive procedure did not imply a less curative one.

[Open and laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy for cancer of the oesophagus: analysis of resection margins and lymph nodes]

INTRODUCTION

Surgical treatment of cancer of the oesophagus is associated with a high morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive surgery has been proposed as an alternative to try to reduce these complications; however, at this time there are not many studies that evaluate the oncological validity of this method. The objective of this work is to give a preliminary audit of the results of our experience in both surgical techniques, with special emphasis on the oncopathological aspects (resection margins and lymph nodes).

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Between April 2003 and February 2007, 40 patients diagnosed with distal oesophageal cancer were surgically intervened at Charing Cross Hospital, London, 24 open and 16 by laparoscopy in accordance with the surgeon responsible. Of these, 50% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Both groups were homogeneous for age, sex, ASA, tumour stage and tumour location. In all cases, the pathological tumour stage (TNM), the tumour distal margin, tumour proximal margin, tumour circumference and number of resected lymph nodes, were collected in a data base.

RESULTS

The number of resected lymph nodes was similar in both groups; (19 for open and 18 for laparoscopy). The mean distal tumour margin for the group treated by open surgery was 4.9 cm compared to 4.3 in the group treated by laparoscopy (p = 0.578). The mean proximal tumour margin for the group treated by open surgery was 8.4 cm compared to 4.6 cm in the laparoscopy group (p = 0.004) and tumour circumference margin was positive in 11 patients (45%) belonging to the open group compared to 5 patients (33%) in the laparoscopy group (p = 0.519).

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, laparoscopic surgery for cancer of the oesophagus appears to show similar initial results to those of open surgery as regards the number of resected lymph nodes and resection margins.

Video-assisted esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Video-assisted surgery for esophageal cancer is an advanced surgical technique. It has been developed on the basis of the concept of minimally invasive surgery. Given that there are several options regarding the operative procedures for thoracic esophageal cancer, several laparoscopic approaches have been proposed. The first video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy through a right thoracoscopic approach and the first transhiatal esophagectomy were reported in the early 1990s. A mediastinoscope-assisted esophagectomy has also been reported as a substitute for a blunt dissection of the esophagus. Moreover, a video-assisted Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy by right thoracotomy with intrathoracic anastomosis has also been performed. Furthermore, laparoscopic gastric mobilization and gastroplasty are also widely accepted substitutions for open laparotomy. This article reviews the literature on the laparoscopic approaches for esophageal cancer.

Systematic review of minimally invasive resection for gastro-oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

This article reviews the evidence on the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery for gastric and oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

An electronic search of the literature between 1997 and 2007 was undertaken to identify primary studies and systematic reviews; studies were retrieved and analysed using predetermined criteria. Information on the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery for gastric and oesophageal cancer was recorded and analysed.

RESULTS

From 188 abstracts reviewed, 46 eligible studies were identified, 23 on oesophagectomy and 23 on gastrectomy. There were 35 case series, eight case-matched studies and three randomized controlled trials. Compared with the contemporary results of open surgery, reports on minimally invasive surgery indicate potentially favourable outcomes in terms of operative blood loss, recovery of gastrointestinal function and hospital stay. However, the quality of the data was generally poor, with many potential sources of bias.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgery is feasible but evidence of benefit is currently weak.

The current management of esophageal cancer

The divergence in epidemiology between the East and West has made interpretation of data in the literature more difficult and has affected the choice of the most appropriate surgical technique and treatment strategies. The management of esophageal cancer certainly has evolved, and many more options are available. Stage-directed strategies and individualization of treatment are important considerations. Surgeons play a central role in directing management of this disease by advising how best to integrate surgical therapy with nonoperative programs. Surgeons should aim at improving their results further, so that the best results of surgery are compared with seemingly "safer" nonsurgical therapies. Low death rates have been achieved in specialized centers, but there still is much room for improvement in morbidity rates. Even with the best surgical resection and chemoradiation therapy, distant failure remains a barrier to improved survival rates. Therapeutic improvements will require more effective systemic drugs and a better ability to predict responders with precision. Management strategies will evolve further, with improvements in molecular techniques, imaging methods, and introduction of more novel tumoricidal agents. The challenge for the future is to test strategies critically in a scientific, unbiased manner and to explore other innovative treatments.

Lymph node dissection in surgical treatment of esophageal neoplasms

The optimal lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer remains controversial. The choice of surgical access determines to a great extent the type of lymphadenectomy possible. En bloc resections and three-field lymphadenectomy are concepts pioneered in the West and East, respectively; both should be performed in specialized centers because such extended lymph node dissection has substantial morbidity rates. Recent focus in research is on refining the indications for these procedures. Patient management strategies should be individualized.

Analysis of respiratory complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy: preliminary observation of persistent aspiration risk

Minimally invasive (MI) esophageal resection (ER) has the theoretical advantage of reduced postoperative complications compared with standard ER. However, the impact of MIER on rates and severity of pulmonary complications is unclear. Four patients underwent laparoscopic gastroesophageal mobilization and resection followed by gastric pull-up and cervical esophageal anastomosis (MIER). Videofluoroscopic swallowing studies (VFSS) assessed pharyngolaryngeal function postoperatively. All postoperative complications were documented. Each MIER was completed successfully without intraoperative complications. Mean operative time was 4.3 +/- 2 h. Postoperatively, VFSS detected laryngeal penetration, vocal cord paralysis, and/or aspiration in three patients, two of whom experienced severe respiratory complications. MIER patients are susceptible to aspiration, likely due to transient denervation of the pharynx and laryngeal structures. Following MIER, aggressive pulmonary toilet and aspiration precautions are emphasized to reduce pulmonary complications. Furthermore, serial evaluation of deglutition is encouraged to guide the safe and appropriate resumption of oral feeding.

Assisted laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy for the treatment of esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Esophageal resection for the treatment of esophageal cancer is usually associated with high morbido-mortality risks, that can be reduced using laparoscopy. Laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy (LTE) has the potential to improve these results but, to-date, only a few limited series of cases have been reported. This report summarizes our experience in 24 cases.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the outcomes following LTE.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Between 1998 and 2005, LTE was performed in 24 patients; 18 men and 6 women with an overall mean age of 63 years (range: 36-85). Indication for surgery was lower third esophageal cancer; 11 squamous cell carcinoma and 13 adenocarcinoma. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy were used in 18 patients (75%). A laparoscopic transhiatal approach was used to perform an esophagectomy with curative intent. A cervical esophagogastric anastomosis was created.

RESULTS

No reversion to conventional open surgery was required. Mean anesthesia time was 293.8 min (range: 255-360). Major complications occurred in 7 patients (29.2%). Two patients (8.3%) had leakage from the cervical anastomosis. Surgical mortality was 8.3%. The median stay in Intensive Care Unit was 5 days (range: 1-29). Median hospital stay was 11.5 days (range: 7-54). At a mean follow-up of 24.9 months, 8 patients (36.4%) had disease recurrence (36.4%), global survival rate was 62.5%, and diseasefree survival rate was 50%.

CONCLUSIONS

Assisted laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy for lower third esophageal cancer is a potentially safe and effective method when performed by surgeons with expertise in the field. Benefits from this approach need to be confirmed by further randomized studies.

First experience with robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagolymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Transthoracic esophagectomy with extended lymph node dissection is associated with higher morbidity rates than transhiatal esophagectomy. This morbidity rate could be reduced by the use of minimally invasive techniques. The feasibility of robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (RTE) with mediastinal lymphadenectomy was assessed prospectively.

METHODS

This study investigated 21 consecutive patients with esophageal cancer who underwent RTE using the Da Vinci robotic system. Continuity was restored with a gastric conduit and a cervical anastomosis.

RESULTS

A total of 18 (86%) procedures were completed thoracoscopically. The operating time for the thoracoscopic phase was 180 min (range, 120-240 min), and the median blood loss was 400 ml (range, 150-700 ml). A median of 20 (range, 9-30) lymph nodes were retrieved. The median intensive care unit stay was 4 days (range, 1-129 days), and the hospital stay was 18 days (range, 11-182 days). Pulmonary complications occurred in 10 patients (48%), and one patient (5%) died of a tracheoneoesophageal fistula.

CONCLUSIONS

In this initial experience, robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy was found to be feasible, providing an effective lymphadenectomy with low blood loss. Standardization of the technique and increased experience should reduce the complication rate, which is in the range of the rate for open transthoracic dissection.

Present state of the Mini-Invasive Surgery (MIS) in esophageal and gastric cancer

The purpose of this review is to stress the role of the Mini-Invasive Surgery (MIS) in the treatment of the esophagogastric malignant illnesses, supporting ourselves on the most relevant publications of the literature as well as on our own experience in this subject. In short, although no randomised prospective study has proven the MIS advantages in relation to the traditional surgery in the esophagectomy due to cancer, some authors preferently indicate this approach to selected and informed enough patients, who present the following: - High grade dysplasia, preferently choosing from laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy (LTE). - Carcinoma in situ, preferently choosing the LTE vs thoracoscopy. - Esophageal tumour locally advanced, in resectable patients with contraindication for a thoracotomy or, in initially non-resectable patients with tumoral reduction after neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy. The arguments given by the authors are the postoperative spectacular improvement in relation to the comfort and quality of life and, the absence of oncological negative effects in the long-term followup. Concerning gastric cancer, the MIS, as exeresis surgical tool in the so-called <<advanced>> gastric forms, is such a definite and oncological approach as the traditional approach, and superior to this as far as quality of life is concerned. When the MIS is used for treating locally advanced forms of gastric cancer, it is as safe as the laparotomic way and it seems to obtain the same oncological outcomes in the long-term.

Minimally invasive techniques for oesophageal cancer surgery

Innovative minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques have been explored for the purpose of oesophagectomy since the early 1990s, including various combinations of thoracoscopy, laparoscopy or laparoscopic-assisted methods, mediastinoscopy and open thoracotomy and laparotomy. The myriad of surgical approaches implies a lack of consensus on which is superior. Like open surgery, it is perhaps more important to have a tailored approach for the individual patient. MIS oesophagectomy has been shown to be feasible, and at least equivalent postoperative morbidity and mortality rates to open surgical resection have been demonstrated. Selected series have achieved less blood loss, reduction in some postoperative complications, decrease in intensive care and hospital stay, and better preservation of pulmonary function. Clear proof of superiority over conventional oesophagectomy methods however is not forthcoming since comparisons were often made with unmatched patient cohorts, and a well conducted randomized controlled trial has not been carried out. It is expected that with further improvements in instrumentation and experience, these difficult procedures may become more accessible and widely practised.

Anesthesiological hazards during laparoscopic transhiatal esophageal resection: a case control study of the laparoscopic-assisted vs the conventional approach

BACKGROUND

Interest for minimal invasive approach of esophagus resection is increasing. Today, a minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy is possible and is accepted widespread. Since cardiopulmonary changes during laparoscopic dissection of the mediastinum has not been studied yet we assessed the anesthesiological consequences of pneumothorax during laparoscopic mediastinal dissection.

METHODS

In this case control study, 25 laparoscopically assisted transhiatal espohagus resections were compared with a control group consisting of 20 open transhiatal esophagus resections. Patient characteristics and intraoperative haemodynamic, respiratory, and ventilatory parameters were assessed.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic assisted procedure was performed successfully in 12 of the 20 patients. The duration of the laparoscopic assisted procedure, compared to the open group was significantly longer (p<0.05). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in the laparoscopic group (p<0.05). Mediastinal dissection resulted in entry of the pleura in 84% of the open and 93% of the laparoscopic assisted procedure. Carbonedioxide pneumothorax resulted in increased end-tidal CO2)and airway pressure levels and decreased lung compliance. Airway pressure showed a significant difference between the groups (p<0.05). Hemodynamic parameters did not differ between groups significantly. There were no differences in postoperative cardiopulmonary complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic assisted transhiatal esophagectomy is a safe procedure and has no increased risk of postoperative cardiopulmonary complications compared to thr conventional approach. The anesthesiologist and the surgeon must be aware of the potential risk of pleural injury to manage cardiopulmonary compromises and minimize complications.