Decreasing morbidity and mortality in 100 consecutive minimally invasive esophagectomies

Minimally invasive surgery for gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: Current evidence and future perspectives

Minimally invasive surgery is increasingly indicated in the management of malignant disease. Although oesophagectomy is a difficult operation, with a long learning curve, there is actually a shift towards the laparoscopic/thoracoscopic/ robotic approach, due to the advantages of visualization, surgeon comfort (robotic surgery) and the possibility of the whole team to see the operation as well as and the operating surgeon. Although currently there are still many controversial topics, about the surgical treatment of patients with gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) adenocarcinoma, such as the type of open or minimally invasive surgical approach, the type of oesophago-gastric resection, the type of lymph node dissection and others, the minimally invasive approach has proven to be a way to reduce postoperative complications of resection, especially by decreasing pulmonary complications. The implementation of new technologies allowed the widening of the range of indications for this type of surgical approach. The short-term and long-term results, as well as the benefits for the patient - reduced surgical trauma, quick and easy recovery - offer this type of surgical treatment the premises for future development. This article reviews the updates and perspectives on the minimally invasive approach for GOJ adenocarcinoma.

Postoperative Hiatal Hernia after Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy-A Growing Problem in the Age of Minimally Invasive Surgery

BACKGROUND

Even though minimally invasive esophagectomy is a safe and oncologically effective procedure, several authors have reported an increased risk of postoperative hiatal hernia (PHH). This study evaluates the incidence and risk factors of PHH after hybrid minimally invasive (HMIE) versus open esophagectomy (OE).

METHODS

A retrospective single-center analysis was performed on patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy between January 2009 and April 2018. Computed tomography scans and patient files were reviewed to identify the PHH.

RESULTS

306 patients were included (152 HMIE; 154 OE). Of these, 23 patients (8%) developed PHH. Most patients (13/23, 57%) were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis and only 4 patients (17%) presented in an emergency setting with incarceration. The rate of PHH was significantly higher after HMIE compared to OE (13.8% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.001). No other risk factors for the development of PHH were identified in uni- or multi-variate analysis. Surgical repair of PHH was performed in 19/23 patients (83%). The recurrence rate of PHH after surgical repair was 32% (6/19 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

The development of PHH is a relevant complication after hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy. Although most patients are asymptomatic, surgical repair is recommended to avoid incarceration with potentially fatal outcomes. Innovative techniques for the prevention and repair of PHH are urgently needed.

Perioperative Clinical Results of Transcervical and Transhiatal Esophagectomy versus Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy in Patients with Esophageal Carcinoma: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study

Background

This study assessed the efficacy of transcervical and transhiatal esophagectomy versus thoracoscopic esophagectomy in patients with esophageal carcinoma (EC).

Methods

A total of 80 patients with EC were enrolled in this study, including 40 cases in the observation group that received transcervical combine transhiatal esophagectomy and the rest 40 cases of the group that underwent thoracoscopic esophagectomy. The preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were analyzed between the two surgeries, regarding perioperative bleeding, the total number of dissected mediastinal lymph nodes, operative time, number of lymph nodes in the left para-recurrent laryngeal nerve (para-RLN) or the right para-RLN, time in the intensive care unit (ICU), postoperative pain score, the length of postoperative stay (LOPS), PO₂/fraction of inspired oxygen (PO₂/FiO2), pulmonary infection, and lymphatic metastasis.

Results

The operations were successfully performed in all 80 patients. The results showed that patients who underwent transcervical and transhiatal esophagectomy had shorter operations than those with transthoracic esophagectomy (200 minutes vs 235 minutes, Kruskal–Wallis test [Z] = –3.700, P < 0.001). The number of dissected mediastinal lymph nodes in the left para-RLN in the observation group was higher than in the control group (25.0% vs 2.5%, Z = 2.568, P = 0.010). The postoperative pain score day 1 (0.0% vs 17.5%, Z = –4.292, P < 0.001), postoperative pain score day 3 (12.5% vs 37.5%, Z = –3.363, P < 0.001) and 48-h PO₂/FiO2 (290 minutes vs 255 minutes, Z = 3.747, P < 0.001) were significant between the two groups. The LOPS of patients with EC in the observation group was shorter than the control group (7 vs 8, Z = –2.119, P = 0.034). The number of patients receiving transcervical and transhiatal esophagectomy that developed postoperative pulmonary infections was less than the controls (chi-square [χ²] = 4.114, P = 0.043). Moreover, the transcervical and transhiatal esophagectomy was an independent protect factor for postoperative pulmonary infection (odds ratio [OR] =7.801, P = 0.037).

Conclusion

The transcervical and transhiatal esophagectomy is a good operation for treating patients with EC, which may offer an opportunity to treat cases who cannot have thoracotomy.

Advantages of McKeown minimally invasive oesophagectomy for the treatment of oesophageal cancer: propensity score matching analysis of 169 cases

BACKGROUND

Oesophagectomy, the gold standard for oesophageal cancer treatment, causes significantly high morbidity and mortality. McKeown minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIE) is preferred for treating oesophageal malignancies; however, limited studies with large sample sizes focusing on the surgical and oncological outcomes of this procedure have been reported. We aimed to compare the clinical safety and efficacy of McKeown MIE with those of open oesophagectomy (OE).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Overall, 338 oesophageal cancer patients matched by gender, age, location, size, and T and N stages (McKeown MIE: 169 vs OE: 169) were analysed. The clinicopathologic features, operational factors, postoperative complications, and prognoses were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

McKeown MIE resulted in less bleeding (200 mL vs 300 mL, p<0.01), longer operation time (335.0 h vs 240.0 h, p<0.01), and higher number of harvested lymph nodes (22 vs 9, p<0.01) than OE did. Although the rate of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury in the two groups was not significantly different, incidence of anastomotic leakage (8 vs 24, p=0.003) was significantly lower in the McKeown MIE group. In addition, patients who underwent McKeown MIE had higher 5-year overall survival than those who underwent OE (69.9% vs 40.4%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

McKeown MIE is proved to be feasible and safe to achieve better surgical and oncological outcomes for oesophageal cancer compared with OE.

Learning curve for minimally invasive oesophagectomy of oesophageal cancer and survival analysis

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy is a technically demanding procedure, and the learning curve for this procedure should be explored. A survival analysis should also be performed.

METHODS

A total of 214 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive oesophagectomy were retrospectively reviewed. To evaluate the development of thoracoscopic-laparoscopic oesophagectomy and compare mature minimally invasive oesophagectomy and open oesophagectomy, we comprehensively studied the clinical and surgical parameters. The cumulative sum (CUSUM) plot was used to evaluate the learning curve for systemic lymphadenectomy. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to explore the clinical factors affecting survival.

RESULTS

The bleeding volume, operation time, and postoperative mortality within 3 months significantly decreased after 20 patients. The rise point for node dissection was visually determined to occur at patient 57 in the CUSUM plots. Patients who underwent mature thoracoscopic-laparoscopic oesophagectomy had better surgical data and short-term benefits than patients who underwent an open procedure. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis showed that the maximum diameter of the tumour cross-sectional area and the number of positive nodes significantly influenced survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that thoracoscopic-laparoscopic oesophagectomy has short-term benefits. There was no evidence that it was associated with a significantly better prognosis for patients with oesophageal cancer. ClinicalTrials Gov ID: NCT04217239; January 2, 2020 retrospectively registered.

The modern management of Barrett's oesophagus and related neoplasia: role of pathology

Modern management of Barrett's oesophagus and related neoplasia essentially focuses upon surveillance to detect early low-risk neoplastic lesions and offering organ-preserving advanced endoscopic therapies, while traditional surgical treatments of oesophagectomy and lymph node clearance with or without chemoradiation are preserved only for high-risk and advanced carcinomas. With this evolution towards figless invasive therapy, the choice of therapy hinges upon the pathological assessment for risk stratifying patients into those with low risk for nodal metastasis who can continue with less invasive endoscopic therapies and others with high risk for nodal metastasis for which surgery or other forms of treatment are indicated. Detection and confirmation of neoplasia in the first instance depends upon endoscopic and pathological assessment. Endoscopic examination and biopsy sampling should be performed according to the recommended protocols, and endoscopic biopsy interpretation should be performed applying standard criteria using appropriate ancillary studies by histopathologists experienced in the pathology of Barrett's disease. Endoscopic resections (ERs) are both diagnostic and curative and should be performed by clinicians who are skilled with advanced endoscopic techniques. Proper preparation and handling of ERs are essential to assess histological parameters that dictate the curative nature of the procedure. Those parameters are adequacy of resection and risk of lymph node metastasis. The risk of lymph node metastasis is determined by depth invasion and presence of poor differentiation and lymphovascular invasion. Those adenocarcinomas with invasion up to muscularis mucosae (pT1a) and those with superficial submucosal invasion (pT1b) up to 500 µ with no poor differentiation and lymphovascular invasion and negative margins may be considered cured by endoscopic resections.

The Impact of Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy with Neck-Abdominal First Approach on the Short- and Long-Term Outcomes for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is no consensus for an optimal minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) approach. This study aimed to compare hybrid MIE (hMIE) with neck-abdominal first approach to standard open esophagectomy (OE).

METHODS

Data from a cohort of 301 patients were retrospectively analyzed. All participants received either hMIE or OE for the treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma at Tokyo Medical and Dental University between January 2003 and December 2013. Analyses included propensity score matching and the Kaplan-Meier statistical method to determine overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of the cohort.

RESULTS

After one-to-one propensity score matching, there were 68 patient pairs. The hMIE group had significantly lower incidence of severe postoperative complications (20.1% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.026) and severe respiratory complications (7.4% vs. 0%; p = 0.058) than the OE group. The 5-year oncological outcomes of the two groups were almost equivalent (OS: OE, 55.0%; hMIE, 69.0%; p = 0.063 and DFS: OE, 54.0%; hMIE, 62.0%; p = 0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

This study compared hMIE with neck-abdominal first approach to standard OE. The results showed significantly less severe postoperative complications for hMIE with neck-abdominal first approach in comparison with OE, without a compromise in long-term oncological outcomes.

Pathological assessment of endoscopic resections of the gastrointestinal tract: a comprehensive clinicopathologic review

Endoscopic resection (ER) allows optimal staging with potential cure of early-stage luminal malignancies while maintaining organ preservation. ER and surgery are non-competing but complementary therapeutic options. In addition, histological examination of ER specimens can either confirm or refine the pre-procedure diagnosis. ER is used for the treatment of Barrett's related early carcinomas and dysplasias, early-esophageal squamous cell carcinomas and dysplasias, early gastric carcinomas and dysplasia, as well as low-risk submucosal invasive carcinomas (LR-SMIC) and, large laterally spreading adenomas of the colon. For invasive lesions, histological risk factors predict risk of lymph node metastasis and residual disease at the ER site. Important pathological risk factors predictive of lymph node metastasis are depth of tumor invasion, poor differentiation, and lymphovascular invasion. Complete resection with negative margins is critical to avoid local recurrences. For non-invasive lesions, complete resection is curative. Therefore, a systematic approach for handling and assessing ER specimens is recommended to evaluate all above key prognostic features appropriately. Correct handling starts with pinning the specimen before fixation, meticulous macroscopic assessment with orientation of appropriate margins, systematic sectioning, and microscopic assessment of the entire specimen. Microscopic examination should be thorough for accurate assessment of all pathological risk factors and margin assessment. Site-specific issues such as duplication of muscularis mucosa of the esophagus, challenges of assessing ampullectomy specimens and site-specific differences of staging of early carcinomas throughout the gastrointestinal tract (GI) tract should be given special consideration. Finally, a standard, comprehensive pathology report that allows optimal staging with potential cure of early-stage malignancies or better stratification and guidance for additional treatment should be provided.

Totally mechanical linear stapled anastomosis for minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: Operative technique and short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Anastomosis is one of the important factors affecting anastomotic complications after esophagectomy, and multiple reports have compared anastomotic complications among various techniques. However, there is insufficient evidence in the literature to definitively recommend one anastomotic technique over another.

METHOD

We retrospectively evaluated 34 consecutive patients who underwent an improved totally mechanical side-to-side: posterior-to-posterior linear stapled (TM-STS) technique for minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagogastric anastomosis, performed by a single surgeon between February 2015 to November 2017. The operative techniques and short-term outcomes are analyzed in this study.

RESULTS

There were no conversions to an open approach and a complete resection was achieved in all patients undergoing this improved procedure. During the first half of the series, the median operation time was 355 minutes, ranging from 257 to 480 minutes. Over the second half of this series, the median operation time was reduced to 256 minutes. There were no mortalities or serious postoperative complications. Only one patient (2.9%) had an anastomotic leak, which resolved without intervention. Another patient (2.9%) experienced transient, delayed conduit emptying which upper gastrointestinal radiography determined was due to a mechanical obstruction caused by an abnormally long gastric tube in the chest cavity.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study suggest that this improved TM-STS technique is safe and effective for minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, and can be considered as one of the alternative procedure for patients with lower esophageal as well as Siewert types I/II gastroesophageal junction carcinoma.

Anastomosis after Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomies are a notoriously difficult procedure that have undergone drastic changes over the last decade. In particular, the adoption of minimally invasive esophagectomies (MIEs) as the gold standard.

METHODS

We examine the evolution of the MIE, the support for this method, and our preferred methods for the creation of anastomoses following the resection.

RESULTS

The submission of techniques that, after many years of practice, have become our standard methods for anastomosing the Neo-esophagus to the remnant esophagus both at the neck, and within the thorax.

CONCLUSION

No matter which MIE technique is chosen, these anastomotic methods are readily available. Each is provided with step-by-step instructions, performed with standard laparoscopic instruments, and in a safe and reproducible manner.

Anastomotic leakage after intrathoracic versus cervical oesophagogastric anastomosis for oesophageal carcinoma in Chinese population: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the characteristics and predictors for anastomotic leakage after oesophagectomy for oesophageal carcinoma from the perspective of anastomotic level.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

A single tertiary medical centre in China.

PARTICIPANTS

From January 2010 to December 2016, all patients with oesophageal cancer of the distal oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction undergoing elective oesophagectomy with a curative intent for oesophageal carcinoma with intrathoracic oesophagogastric anastomosis (IOA) versus cervical oesophagogastric anastomosis (COA) were included. We investigated anastomotic level and perioperative confounding factors as potential risk factors for postoperative leakage by univariate and multivariate logistic regression.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the odds of anastomotic leakage by different confounding factors. Secondary outcome was the association of IOA versus COA with other postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 458 patients included, 126 underwent cervical anastomosis and 332 underwent intrathoracic anastomosis. Anastomotic leakage developed in 55 patients (12.0%), with no statistical differences between COA and IOA (16.6% vs 10.2%; p=0.058). Multivariable analysis identified active diabetes mellitus (OR 2.001, p=0.047), surgical procedure (open: reference; minimally invasive: OR 1.770, p=0.049) and anastomotic method (semimechanical: reference; stapled: OR 1.821; handsewn: OR 2.271, p=0.048) rather than anastomotic level (IOA: reference; COA: OR 1.622, p=0.110) were independent predictors of leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical and anastomotic techniques rather than the level of anastomotic site were independent predictors of postoperative anastomotic leakage in patients undergoing oesophageal cancer surgery.

MINIMALLY INVASIVE LAPAROSCOPIC ESOPHAGECTOMY VS. TRANSHIATAL OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY IN ACHALASIA: A RANDOMIZED STUDY

BACKGROUND

Open and laparoscopic trans-hiatal esophagectomy has been successfully performed in the treatment of megaesophagus. However, there are no randomized studies to differentiate them in their results.

AIM

To compare the results of minimally invasive laparoscopic esophagectomy (EMIL) vs. open trans-hiatal esophagectomy (ETHA) in advanced megaesophagus.

METHOD

A total of 30 patients were randomized, 15 of them in each group - EMIL and ETHA. The studied variables were dysphagia score before and after the operation at 24-months follow-up; pain score in the immediate postoperative period and at hospital discharge; complications of the procedure, comparing each group. Were also studied: surgical time in minutes, transfusion of blood products, length of hospital stay, mortality and follow-up time.

RESULTS

ETHA group comprised eight men and seven women; in the EMIL group, four women and 11 men. The median age in the ETHA group was 47.2 (29-68) years, and in the EMIL group of 44.13 (20-67) years. Mean follow-up time was 33 months, with one death in each group, both by fatal aspiration. There was no statistically significant difference between the EMIL vs. ETHA scores for dysphagia, pain and in-hospital complications. The same was true for surgical time, transfusion of blood products and hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference between EMIL and ETHA in all the studied variables, thus allowing them to be considered equivalent.

Disparities in major surgery for esophagogastric cancer among hospitals by case volume

Background

The purpose of this study was to characterize disparities among centers performing major surgery for esophageal or gastric cancer stratified by case volume.

Methods

The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was queried for cases of esophagectomy or total gastrectomy. Centers were compared based on number of cases during 2004-2013: low volume [1-99], middle [100-200], and high [>200].

Results

For esophagectomy, 17,547 patients were included; 73.5% were treated in low volume centers, 14.6% in middle, and 11.9% in high. For gastrectomy, 20,059 patients were included, with 87.5%, 8.3%, and 4.3%, respectively. Patients treated at low volume centers were more likely to be of racial/ethnic minorities, uninsured, and have lower socioeconomic status. Overall survival (OS) was superior for patients treated at high volume centers. On multivariable analysis for either procedure, a higher number of disparate factors was identified in the low and middle volume centers compared to the high volume centers, which were associated with poorer OS.

Conclusions

This study identified higher numbers of disparate patient factors associated with low/middle volume centers compared to high volume centers, which were associated with worse OS, and further makes the case for performance of esophagectomy and total gastrectomy at high volume centers.

Two-step method for creating a gastric tube during laparoscopic-thoracoscopic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy

AIM

To introduce a two-step method for creating a gastric tube during laparoscopic-thoracoscopic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy and assess its clinical application.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty-two patients with middle or lower esophageal cancer who underwent laparoscopic-thoracoscopic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy at Liaoning Cancer Hospital and Institute from March 2014 to March 2016 were included in this study, and divided into two groups based on the procedure used for creating a gastric tube. One group used a two-step method for creating a gastric tube, and the other group used the conventional method. The two groups were compared regarding the operating time, surgical complications, and number of stapler cartridges used.

RESULTS

The mean operating time was significantly shorter in the two-step method group than in the conventional method group [238 (179-293) min vs 272 (189-347) min, P < 0.01]. No postoperative death occurred in either group. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications [14 (21.9%) vs 13 (22.4%), P = 0.55] or mean number of stapler cartridges used [5 (4-6) vs 5.2 (5-6), P = 0.007] between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The two-step method for creating a gastric tube during laparoscopic-thoracoscopic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy has the advantages of simple operation, minimal damage to the tubular stomach, and reduced use of stapler cartridges.

Pilot study on preventing anastomotic leakage in stapled gastroesophageal anastomosis

Background

This study explored how to improve the surgical technique to reduce or avoid anastomotic leakage.

Methods

From January 2012 to December 2016, 101 consecutive patients with cancer of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction underwent stapled gastroesophageal anastomosis. The procedure included creating a tube‐type stomach, fixing an inserted anvil, inspecting mucosa‐to‐mucosa alignment in the lumen under direct vision after firing the stapler, and, if found, manually repairing a rupture of the mucous membrane of the anastomosis.

Results

A rupture of the mucous membrane of the anastomosis was found in four out of the 101 patients and manually repaired. No postsurgical anastomotic leakage occurred. All patients recovered well and the average postoperative stay was 10.4 days. There was no mortality within 30 days after surgery.

Conclusion

It is critical to inspect the integrality of the luminal mucous membrane of the anastomosis under direct vision in order to prevent anastomotic leakage in surgical resection of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction malignancies.

Impact of surgical approach on perioperative and long-term outcomes following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection remains a critical component of esophageal cancer treatment with curative-intent. The aim of this study was to compare open (OE) to minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIE) with respect to perioperative and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective single-institution review of MIE and OE patients operated between 2001 and 2015 was conducted. Univariable and multivariable models were created using Cox regression. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare oncologic outcomes. Propensity score matching was used to compare oncological outcomes in MIE and OE patients.

RESULTS

Of 210 esophageal resection patients, 47% had OE (137/291) and 25% had MIE (73/291). The MIE and OE groups were comparable with respect to patient factors and operative details. Fewer OE patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. MIE was associated with improved lymph node yield, (MIE = 30 [IQR:22-39]; OE = 14 [IQR:7-19], p < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (MIE = 312 mL [100-400]; OE = 657 mL [350-700], p < 0.001), and shorter median length of stay (MIE = 10 days [IQR = 8-14]; OE = 14 days [IQR = 11-22] p < 0.01). The OE group had significantly more adverse events resulting in reoperation or intensive care unit admission (MIE = 21%; OE = 34%; p < 0.01). On multivariable analysis, age and positive resection margins were associated with decreased odds of survival. The number of lymph nodes retrieved, positive resection margins, and pathologic stage were significant predictors of disease-free survival. Analysis of 69 matched pairs showed equivalent median overall survival (MIE = 49 months [18-67]; OE = 29 months [17-69]; p = 0.26) and disease-free survival (MIE = 9 [6-22]; OE = 13 [6-22]; p = 0.45) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although long-term oncologic outcomes appear to be similar, MIE is associated with significantly less intraoperative blood loss, improved lymph node yield, less risk of severe postoperative adverse events, and shorter length of stay.

Implementation of minimally invasive esophagectomy in a tertiary referral center for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy remains the gold standard in the curative intent treatment of resectable esophageal cancer. However, this procedure is complex and associated with high risk of complications. In an effort to reduce the postoperative morbidity associated with open esophagectomy various minimally invasive techniques have been introduced and developed during the recent years. The aim of the current study was to present our 4.5-year experience of the gradual implementation of various minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) techniques in our tertiary referral center.

METHODS

From May 2012 a transitional period from conventional open esophagectomy to MIE was initiated. This period was preceded by fellowships and visits to expert centers abroad. Thereafter, a gradual implementation and refinement of the new techniques followed. Technique related data were collected prospectively.

RESULTS

Between January 1^st 2011 and December 31^st 2016 a total of 249 patients underwent an esophagectomy in our unit. Seventy-six cases were performed through a conventional open esophagectomy and 173 by some type of MIE. An increasing utilization of MIE over this time period was seen and finally reached 100% of treatment intentions, during the last 2 years. Ten cases (5.7%) where converted to open approach. A decrease in leak rate, operating time, peroperative bleeding and hospital stay as well as an increasing number of harvested lymph nodes was observed during the implementation period.

CONCLUSIONS

The transition from conventional open esophagectomy to MIE was successful at our center. The implementation was overall safe with good postoperative outcomes, although changes in results required technical modifications over time.

Introduction of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in a Community Teaching Hospital

Background and Objectives:

The safety of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) outside of high-volume centers has not been studied. Therefore, we evaluated our experience with the introduction of MIE in the setting of a community teaching hospital.

Methods:

A retrospective cohort of all elective esophagectomy patients treated in a community hospital from 2008 through 2015 was evaluated (n = 57; open = 31 vs MIE = 26). Clavien-Dindo complication grades were recorded prospectively.

Results:

Mean age was 63 ± 11 years (range, 30–83), mean Charlson comorbidity index was 4.5 ± 1.7 and proportion of ASA score ≥3 was 87%. The groups did not differ in age, gender distribution, or comorbidity indices. There were 108 complications observed, including 2 deaths (3.5%, both coronary events). Postoperative complication rate was 77.1% and serious complication rate (grades 3 and 4) was 50.8% in the entire cohort. The rate of serious complications was similar (58% for open vs 42% for MIE group; 2-sided P = .089). MIE operations were longer (342 ± 109 vs 425 ± 74 minutes; P = .001). Length of stay trended toward not being significantly shorter among MIE cases (15 ± 13 vs 12 ± 12 days; P = .071). Logistic regression models including MIE status were not predictive of complications.

Conclusions:

Introduction of MIE esophagectomy in our community hospital was associated with prolonged operative time, but no detectable adverse outcomes. Length of stay was nonsignificantly shortened by the use of MIS esophagectomy.

A non-randomized retrospective observational study on the subcutaneous esophageal reconstruction after esophagectomy: is it feasible in high-risk patients?

BACKGROUND

Esophageal reconstruction after esophagectomy is a complex procedure with high morbidity and mortality. Anastomotic leakage is more severe and frequent in patients with preoperative comorbidities and may present with septic conditions. Considering the possibility of an easier management of such cases, we evaluated the safety and feasibility of subcutaneous esophageal reconstruction in patients with high operative risks.

METHODS

We performed a non-randomized retrospective observational study on the 75 (subcutaneous: 21, intrathoracic: 54) esophageal cancer patients who underwent esophageal reconstruction either through subcutaneous or intrathoracic route between January 2003 and February 2015. Preoperative data including the estimated reasons for the selection of the subcutaneous route were obtained from medical charts. Clinical outcomes were evaluated and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The mean postoperative hospital stay was longer in the subcutaneous group than the overall group. Anastomotic leakage occurred more frequently in the subcutaneous group [10 (47.6%) vs. 7 (13%), P=0.004]. Three major leakages resulted in chronic cutaneous fistula, but were successfully treated by lower neck reconstruction using radial forearm fasciocutaneous free flap (RFFF). There was no in-hospital mortality in the subcutaneous group.

CONCLUSIONS

Subcutaneous esophageal reconstruction in high-risk patients showed a higher rate of anastomotic leakage. However, easier correction without fatal septic conditions could be obtained by primary repair or flap reconstruction resulting in lower perioperative mortality. Therefore, esophageal reconstruction through the subcutaneous route is not recommended as a routine primary option. However, in highly selected patients with unfavorable preoperative comorbidities or intraoperative findings, especially those with poor blood supply to the graft, graft hematoma or edema, or gross tumor invasion to surrounding tissues, esophageal reconstruction through the subcutaneous route may carefully be considered as an alternative to the conventional surgical techniques.

Is Chemical Pyloroplasty Necessary for Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy?

BACKGROUND

Many centers use botulinum toxin for chemical pyloroplasty in minimally invasive esophagectomies as prophylaxis against delayed gastric emptying. No previous studies have compared botulinum toxin injection with no pyloric intervention for patients treated with a combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approach. The authors hypothesized that chemical pyloroplasty does not improve outcomes for these patients.

METHODS

The study investigated patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomies from September 2009 to June 2015. Delayed gastric emptying was defined as inability to tolerate a soft diet by postoperative day 10, as corroborated by esophagram, upper endoscopy, or both. Data were compared using Student's t test, χ ² analysis, and Mann-Whitney U test where appropriate.

RESULTS

The study identified 71 patients treated with minimally invasive esophagectomy: 35 patients with chemical pyloroplasty treated from September 2009 to January 2014 and 36 patients without pyloric intervention from February 2014 to June 2015. The groups were statistically similar in age, gender distribution, T stage, percentage of patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy, body mass index, preoperative weight loss, preoperative serum albumin, and preoperative placement of feeding tubes (all p > 0.05). The overall incidence of delayed gastric emptying was low in both groups: 8.6% (3/35) of the patients with chemical pyloroplasty versus 5.6% (2/36) of the patients with no pyloric intervention (p = 0.62). The two groups also did not differ significantly in the development of aspiration pneumonia or the need for pyloric intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

In a well-matched cohort study with a historical control group, use of botulinum toxin for chemical pyloroplasty in minimally invasive esophagectomies was not associated with improved outcomes related to the pylorus versus no pyloric intervention. Although preliminary, these data suggest that chemical pyloroplasty is not necessary in minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Effectiveness of Repeat 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography Computerized Tomography (PET-CT) Scan in Identifying Interval Metastases for Patients with Esophageal Cancer

INTRODUCTION

An 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computerized tomography (PET-CT) scan is performed after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) to restage esophageal cancer. The purpose of this study was to determine the ability of PET-CT to accurately identify interval metastatic disease following nCRT.

METHODS

This was a single-institution retrospective review (January 2005-February 2012) of patients with esophageal cancer treated with nCRT who underwent pre- and post-nCRT PET-CT.

RESULTS

A total of 283 patients were treated with nCRT, of whom 258 (91.2%) had both a pre- and post-nCRT PET-CT. On the post-nCRT PET-CT, 64 patients (24.8%) had interval findings concerning for metastatic disease. Of these patients, only 10 (15.6%) had true-positive findings of metastatic disease (six biopsy proven). The sites of interval metastases included bone (4), liver (3), peritoneum (1), mediastinal lymph nodes (1), and cervical lymph nodes (1). The positive predictive value of post-nCRT PET-CT for interval metastases was 15.6% (10/64), and the yield for detecting metastases since the pre-nCRT PET-CT was 3.9% (10/258). The work-up of the 54 patients (20.9% of the initial starting group) with false-positive post-nCRT findings included biopsy (24.6%) and immediate additional imaging (45.2%). A total of 208 patients proceeded with surgery: 163 (78.4%) had no new findings on post-nCRT PET-CT, and 45 (21.6%) had new false-positive findings. False-positive sites mainly included the lung (15) and liver (14).

CONCLUSIONS

The yield of post-nCRT PET-CT for the detection of new metastatic disease was 3.9%. Post-nCRT PET-CT often leads to a high proportion of false positives and subsequent investigational work-up.

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Adenocarcinomas of the Gastroesophageal Junction and Distal Esophagus: Notes on Technique

In the last three decades, with the advancement of laparoscopic and thoracoscopic surgery, minimally invasive approaches for benign and malignant diseases of the esophagus have been developed and more experience is starting to accumulate across the world. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has demonstrated acceptable lymph node retrieval, good postoperative outcomes, and low mortality. In this article, we review our preferred technique of MIE for adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal junction and distal esophagus.

Minimally Invasive Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy (MIILE): A Single-Center Experience

With the development of minimally invasive procedures, minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (MIILE) has been proposed as a safe and feasible surgical choice for the treatment of esophageal cancer. This retrospective study evaluated MIILE results from a single medical center. A total of 619 patients were selected as candidates for Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy from December 2011 to May 2015, in which 334 patients accepted MIILE and 285 patients accepted open Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (OILE). General characteristics, surgical data, complication rates, and survival were analyzed. Differences in general characteristics between groups were not significant. Intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.01), postoperative volume of drainage for the first day (P < 0.01), time to drain removal (P ≤ 0.01), wound infection rate (P = 0.04), and length of hospital stay (P < 0.01) were significantly reduced in the MIILE group. There were no statistically significant differences in general morbidity (P = 0.56), the total swept lymph nodes (P = 0.47), mortality (P = 0.34), and survival rate at 3 years (P = 0.63). MIILE is a safe and feasible method for the treatment of esophageal cancer, in which good outcomes were reported and some advantages were found over the open procedure.

Total minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: approaches and outcomes

Since the introduction of minimally invasive esophagectomy 25 years ago, its use has been reported in several high volume centers. With only one published randomized control trial and five meta-analyses comparing its outcomes to open esophagectomy, available level I evidence is very limited. Available technical approaches include total minimally invasive transthoracic (Ivor Lewis or McKeown) or transhiatal esophagectomy; several hybrid options are available with one portion of the procedure completed via an open approach. A review of available level I evidence with focus on total minimally invasive esophagectomy is presented. The old debate regarding the superiority of a transthoracic versus transhiatal approach to esophagectomy may have been settled by minimally invasive esophagectomy as only few centers are reporting on the latter being utilized. The studies with the highest level of evidence available currently show that minimally invasive techniques via a transthoracic approach are associated with less overall morbidity, fewer pulmonary complications, and shorter hospital stays than open esophagectomy. There appears to be no detrimental effect on oncologic outcomes and possibly an added benefit derived by improved lymph node retrieval. Quality of life improvements may also translate into improved survival, but no conclusive evidence exists to support this claim. Robotic and hybrid techniques have also been implemented, but there currently is no evidence showing that these are superior to other minimally invasive techniques.

Use of single-lumen tube for minimally invasive and hybrid esophagectomies with prone thoracoscopic dissection: case series

Minimally invasive and hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is a technically challenging procedure. Anesthesia for the same is equally challenging due to special requirements of the video-assisted thoracoscopic technique used and shared operative and respiratory fields. Standard ventilatory strategy for this kind of surgery has been 1-lung ventilation with the help of a double-lumen tube. Prone positioning for thoracoscopic dissection facilitates gravity-dependant collapse of the operative side lung induced by a unilateral capnothorax, thus making the use of single-lumen endotracheal tube a feasible option for this surgery. We report our experience of 10 consecutive cases of minimally invasive esophagectomy conducted in prone position at our center and the use of single-lumen endotracheal tube for ventilation.

Does minimally invasive oesophagectomy provide a benefit in hospital length of stay when compared with open oesophagectomy?

A best evidence topic in thoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: 'in patients undergoing oesophagectomy, does a minimally invasive approach convey a benefit in hospital length of stay (LOS), when compared to an open approach?' A total of 647 papers were identified, using an a priori defined search strategy; 24 papers represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date, country of publication, patient group, study type, relevant outcomes and key results are tabulated. Of the studies identified, data from two randomized controlled trials were available. The first randomized study compared the use of open thoracotomy and laparotomy versus thoracoscopy and laparoscopy. Those undergoing minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) left hospital on average 3 days earlier than those treated with the open oesophagectomy (OO) technique (P = 0.044). The other randomized trial, which compared thoracotomy with thoracoscopy and laparoscopy, demonstrated a reduction of 1.8 days in the LOS when employing the MIO technique (P < 0.001). With the addition of the remaining 22 non-randomized studies, comprising 3 prospective and 19 retrospective cohort studies, which are heterogeneous with regard to their design, study populations and outcomes; data are available representing 3173 MIO and 25 691 OO procedures. In total, 13 studies (including the randomized trials) demonstrate a significant reduction in hospital LOS associated with MIO; 10 suggest no significant difference between techniques; and only 1 suggests a significantly greater length of stay associated with MIO. The only two randomized trials comparing MIO and OO demonstrated a reduction in length of stay in the MIO group, without compromising survival or increasing complication rates. All bar one of the non-randomized studies demonstrated either a significant reduction in length of stay with MIO or no difference. The benefit in reduced length of stay was not at the cost of worsened survival or increased complications, and conversion rates in all studies were low.

Nationwide analysis of short-term surgical outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy for malignancy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is being increasingly utilized for esophageal cancer. It is unclear if MIE if being safely performed with satisfactory outcomes across the USA. We aimed to analyze the short-term surgical outcomes of MIE as compared to open esophagectomy (OE).

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients who underwent MIE or OE for esophageal malignancy between 2010 and 2011. Margin positivity, lymph node retrieval, 30-day mortality, 30-day unplanned readmission rate and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

A total of 4047 patients were identified; 3050 (75.4%) underwent OE, and 997 (24.6%) underwent MIE. The proportion of MIE increased from 21.9% in 2010 to 27.4% in 2011 (p < 0.001). The conversion rate was 13.7%. There were no differences in-patient or tumor characteristics between the two cohorts. OE and MIE were comparable in terms of margin positive resection rate (7.4% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.48), 30-day unplanned readmission rate (7.6% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.64) and 30-day mortality rate (4.3% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.71). Compared to OE, MIE was associated with higher node retrieval (median 12 vs 14, p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (median 11.0 vs 10.0 days, p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that surgical approach (OE vs MIE) was not associated with 30-day mortality rate. In an ANCOVA analysis, MIE was independently associated with a shorter hospital stay compared to OE (estimated mean difference 1.57 ± 0.53 days, p = 0.003). MIE patients who underwent conversion had a longer hospital stay compared to those who did not (11.0 vs 10.0 days, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

MIE is being offered more frequently to patients with esophageal cancer, and maybe accompanied with better short-term outcomes including shorter hospital stay when compared to open esophagectomy.

Comparison of thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis with McKeown esophagectomy for middle esophageal cancer

Background

In China, the middle esophageal squamous cell cancer is the most common tumor type, and Mckeown esophagectomy (ME) is preferably adopted by thoracic surgeon. But, the surgical trauma of ME is great. Thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy (TE) was developed to decrease the operative stress; however, the safety and efficacy were not defined. In this study, clinical outcomes were compared between patients who received ME and TE.

Methods

The data of 113 patients who suffered from middle-thoracic esophageal cancer during the same period were collected. Sixty-two patients received ME (ME group), and 51 patients received TE (TE group). Patients’ demographics and short-term clinicopathologic outcomes were comparable between the two groups. Survival rate was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and comparisons between groups were performed with log–rank test.

Results

Patients in TE group had lower body mass index (BMI). Preoperative tumor stage in TE group was much earlier. Both overall and thoracic operation time were longer in TE group. The blood loss during operation and postoperative day (POD) 1 was less in TE group, which contributed to the less blood transfusion. In TE group, postoperative incidence of pulmonary complications and atrial fibrillation (p = 0.035 and p = 0.033) was lower; the inflammatory response and incision pain were significantly alleviated; the ICU and in-hospital stay was shorter as well because of less surgical trauma. No statistically significant difference was found between two groups in terms of overall survival or disease-free survival.

Conclusions

The efficacy and safety of TE were supported by the selected patients in this cohort study. Although it is lack of randomness in this research, some advantages of TE were gratifying such as lower postoperative complications and similar survival with ME. A multicenter prospective randomized study is now required.

Impact of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical treatment of esophageal cancer is associated to a high morbidity and mortality rate. The open transthoracic or transhiatal esophagectomy are considerably invasive procedures and have been associated to high rates of complications and operative mortality. In this way, minimally invasive esophageal surgery has been suggested as an alternative to the classic procedures because would produce improvement in clinical longterm postoperative outcomes.

AIM

To assess survival, mortality and morbidity results of esophagectomy due to esophageal cancer submitted to minimally invasive techniques and compare them to results published in international literature.

METHOD

An observational, prospective study. Between 2003 and 2012, 69 patients were submitted to a minimally invasive esophagectomy due to cancer. It was recorded postoperative morbidity and mortality according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. The survival rate was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method. The number of lymph nodes obtained during the lymph node dissection, as an index of the quality of the surgical technique, was analysed.

RESULTS

63.7% of patients had minor complications (type I-II Clavien Dindo), while nine (13%) required surgical re-exploration. The most common postoperative complication corresponded to leak of the cervical anastomosis seen in 44 (63.7%) patients but without clinical repercusion, only two of them required reoperation. The mortality rate was 4.34%, and reoperation was necessary in nine (13%) cases. The average survival time was 22.59 ± 25.38 months, with the probability of a 3-year survival rate estimated at 30%. The number of resected lymph nodes was 17.17 ± 9.62.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive techniques have lower morbidity and mortality rate, very satisfactory lymphnodes resection and similar long term outcomes in term of quality of life and survival compared to results observed after open surgery.

Prospective Comprehensive Swallowing Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomies with Cervical Anastomosis: Silent Versus Vocal Aspiration

INTRODUCTION

Pneumonia and tracheal aspiration remain problematic following esophagectomy. We hypothesized that the incidence of postesophagectomy pneumonia occurs in part because of swallowing dysfunction and more importantly silent tracheobronchial aspiration. Therefore, we instituted a routine prospective formal swallowing evaluation to determine if the aspiration rate and its associated morbidity can be decreased by early identification of patients with silent or vocal aspiration.

METHODS

Patients undergoing minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy and receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACR) were prospectively enrolled between December 2013 to January 2015. A standardized cineradiography observation utilizing the Rosenbek penetration-aspiration (RPA) scale was used to rule out anastomotic leak and/or aspiration.

RESULTS

Of 27 patients evaluated, twelve patients were noted to have silent (n = 8) or vocal (cough n = 4) aspiration of thin liquid (n = 8) or nectar-thick consistency (n = 4) on their initial study. Three patients were noted to have an anastomotic leak and vocal aspiration on their initial study. Eight of the nine patients who aspirated but did not have an anastomotic leak on their initial study had a repeat RPA study prior to discharge showing improvement from the initial study. Six patients (22 %) had vocal cord paresis and clinical hoarseness, but only two patients who had clinical diagnosis of pneumonia were noted to have vocal cord paresis and silent aspiration.

CONCLUSIONS

Swallowing dysfunction remains a common problem after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with cervical anastomosis and can be readily identified. Silent aspiration likely contributes to pneumonia after MIE.

Anastomotic Leakage Following Esophagectomy

Anastomotic leaks remain a significant clinical challenge following esophagectomy with foregut reconstruction. Despite an increasing understanding of the multiple contributing factors, advancements in perioperative optimization of modifiable risks, and improvements in surgical, endoscopic, and percutaneous management techniques, leaks remain a source of major morbidity associated with esophageal resection. The surgeon should be well versed in the principles underlying the cause of leaks, and strategies to minimize their occurrence. Appropriately diagnosed and managed, most anastomotic leaks following esophagectomy can be brought to a successful resolution.

Laparoscopic gastric tube formation with pyloromyotomy for reconstruction in patients with esophageal cancer

PURPOSE

To analyze the benefit and feasibility of this procedure compared with those of open method.

METHODS

Abdominal procedure includes laparoscopic gastric mobilization, celiac axis lymph node dissection, formation of the gastric tube, and pyloromyotomy. The actual procedure performed during open surgery is the same as those of laparoscopic surgery except for the main incision. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was performed on 54 patients with esophageal cancer. The short-term outcomes, including postoperative complications were analyzed and compared with 44 cases of open method.

RESULTS

Although the total operative time was not different between 2 groups (349.8 minutes vs. 374.8 minutes, P = 0.153), the operation time of abdominal procedure was shorter in laparoscopic group (90.6 minutes vs. 162.1 minutes, P < 0.001). Operation related complications and hospital stay were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The number of transfused patients was significantly smaller in laparoscopic group (11.1% vs. 27.9%, P = 0.030).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic gastric tubing with pyloromyotomy is a feasible and safe treatment option for patients with esophageal cancer.

The 3-Hole Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Safe Procedure Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Radiation

Induction therapy followed by esophagectomy has become standard for treatment of intermediate-stage esophageal cancer in many centers. Herein we evaluate the feasibility and safety of the 3-hole minimally invasive esophagectomy (3HMIE) approach in patients who received induction radiation and chemotherapy. Between 2003 and 2012, the records of 119 consecutive patients with esophageal cancer who underwent 3HMIE were reviewed for perioperative complications and long-term outcomes. Comparison was made between procedures performed for patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation and patients who were treated with only surgery. Of them, 78 patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation and 41 patients were treated with only surgery. Tumor locations were upper (2), middle (16), distal (64), and gastroesophageal junction (37). In all, 76 patients were at clinical stage IIA or above at presentation. Increased requirement for blood replacement in the induction therapy group was significant compared with the surgery-only group. Operative time, estimated blood loss, proximal and distal margin lengths, and length of stay were not significantly different between the cohorts. There was a 30-day perioperative death (0.8%), and this patient was from the surgery-only group. No conduit necrosis or need for diversion was recorded. Overall, 5-year survival was 62% among the 107 patients with early-stage esophageal cancer. 3HMIE is feasible with low mortality and acceptable morbidity even in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. Overall perioperative and survival outcomes are similar to or better than those reported in the published literature on esophagectomy after induction therapy.

Comparison of perioperative outcomes between open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

To compare surgical outcomes of thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy with open esophagectomy in order to study the learning curve of minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancers.

METHODS

Among 109 esophageal cancer patients retrospectively studied, 59 patients underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and 50 underwent open surgery (OE). In the MIE group, the first 30 patients received hybrid procedures, including 16 thoracoscopic esophagectomies and 14 laparoscopic maneuvers. The later 29 patients received thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy (TLE).

RESULTS

The overall morbidity of MIE and OE was 42.4% (25/59) and 44.0% (22/50), respectively, with no statistical difference. However, the MIE group had a significantly lower incidence of functional complication (1.79%, 1/59) than the OE group (32.0%, 16/50, P < 0.01). The technical complication rate was not significantly different between the two groups (14/59, 23.7% vs. 6/50, 12.0%, P = NS), nor was the overall complication rate between the 30 early period cases and the 29 later cases (P = NS); although the later cases had TLE and there was no recurrent laryngeal nerve injury.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive approaches may help to decrease the risk of functional complication but not technical problems, after esophagectomy. For esophageal cancer patients to benefit from this minimally invasive surgery, an extended learning curve is necessary to avoid technical problems, such as anastomotic leakage and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy.

Should we continue to drain the pylorus in patients undergoing an esophagectomy?

A systematic review of the literature was performed to assess the necessity of a pyloric drainage procedure during an esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction. Earlier data recommend performing a pyloric drainage procedure for all esophagectomies; however, recent studies have questioned this. A thorough literature search (January 2001-November 2011) was performed using the terms esophagectomy, pyloroplasty, pyloromyotomy, botulinum toxin, and pyloric drainage. Only studies that compared patient outcome after undergoing an esophagectomy with a pyloric drainage procedure with those undergoing an esophagectomy without a pyloric drainage procedure were selected. Only four studies, comprising 668 patients in total, were identified that compared patient outcome after undergoing an esophagectomy with or without a pyloric drainage procedure, and two additional meta-analyses were identified and selected for discussion. All studies were retrospective, and because of the heterogeneity of studies, patient demographics, reporting, and statistical analysis of patient outcome, pooling of data and meta-analysis could not be performed. Careful analysis demonstrated that pyloric drainage procedure was associated with a non-significant trend for delayed gastric emptying and biliary reflux, while not affecting the incidence of dumping. No correlation was determined between a pyloric drainage procedure and anastomotic leaks, postoperative pulmonary complications, length of hospital stay, and overall perioperative morbidity. While there are risks associated with a pyloric drainage procedure and data exist supporting its omission during an esophagectomy, no good conclusion can be drawn from the current literature. Larger multi-institutional, prospective studies are required to definitively answer this question.

Minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancer - benefits and controversies

Open esophagectomy (OE) requires extensive surgery and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, the long-term results of esophageal cancer surgery are not satisfactory; hence, the best surgical approach is constantly under debate. During the last twenty years, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) employing laparoscopy and/or thoracoscopy has been introduced in a growing number of centers worldwide. To date, several studies have demonstrated that MIE has better outcomes than OE, as it results in shorter hospital stay and decreased overall morbidity. However, the length of operating time in MIE is increased in comparison to OE. The survival benefit has been demonstrated to be similar in OE and MIE. Highly advanced laparo-thoracoscopic skills are required to perform MIE; along with the relatively long learning curve, this makes MIE feasible only in high-volume, experienced university surgical centers. There is a need for further large-scale comparative studies to prove the superiority of MIE over open surgery.

Minimally invasive and robotic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy

Esophageal cancer is the eighth most common malignancy and the sixth most common cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Esophagectomy provides a curative treatment but carries significant morbidity and mortality. Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (ILE) is one of the most commonly employed open techniques of esophagectomy. Minimally invasive approaches have been explored in ILE in an effort to reduce operative morbidity. This article reviews recent literature of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MI-ILE), discusses its clinical outcomes, and introduces the robotic approach in MI-ILE. MI-ILE has demonstrated comparable postoperative outcomes to open ILE, and it has shown potential to reduce blood loss and length of hospitalization. Due to limited studies, no significant improvement of long-term survival has been reported in MI-ILE. Robotic ILE is safe and feasible, but more studies are needed to prove identifiable benefits. Randomized controlled trials comparing MI-ILE or robotic ILE with conventional open ILE are warranted to determine the optimal surgical procedure for the treatment of esophageal cancer.

The incidence of hiatal hernia after minimally invasive esophagectomy

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has evolved as a means to minimize the morbidity of an operation which is traditionally associated with a significant risk. However, this approach may have its own unique postoperative complications. In this study, we describe the incidence and outcomes of hiatal hernia in a cohort of MIE patients.

METHODS

Clinical follow-up data on 114 patients who had undergone minimally invasive esophagectomy between 2003 and 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical presentation and computed tomography (CT) scans of the chest and abdomen were used to establish the diagnosis of hiatal herniation after minimally invasive esophagectomy. Age, gender, presenting complaint, comorbid conditions, clinical tumor stage, surgical specimen size, length and cost of hospital admissions, operation performed for hiatal herniation, and mortality were all recorded for analysis.

RESULTS

Nine (8%) of the 114 patients who underwent MIE had postoperative hiatal herniation. Five of these patients were asymptomatic. All patients except two who presented emergently were repaired laparoscopically on an elective basis. The average length of stay after hiatal hernia repair was 5.5 days (range 2-12) at an average charge of $40,785 (range $25,264-$83,953). At follow-up, one patient complained of symptoms associated with reflux.

CONCLUSION

Hiatal herniation is not a rare event after MIE. It is also associated with significant health-care cost and may be lethal. Most occurrences appear to be asymptomatic and, if detected, can be repaired with good resolution of symptoms, minimal associated morbidity, and no mortality.

Comparison of pyloric intervention strategies at the time of esophagectomy: is more better?

BACKGROUND

Controversy remains regarding the role of pyloric drainage procedures after esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction. We aimed to compare the effect of pyloric drainage strategies upon subsequent risk of complications suggestive of conduit distention, including aspiration and anastomotic leak.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted reviewing patients undergoing esophagectomy between January 2007 and April 2012. Prospectively collected data included baseline comorbidities, operative details, hospital course, and complications. Statistical comparisons were performed using analysis of variance for continuous variables and χ(2) testing for categorical variables.

RESULTS

There were 361 esophagectomies performed during the study period; 68 were excluded from analysis (for prior esophagogastric surgery or benign disease or both). Among 293 esophagectomies included, emptying procedures were performed as follows: 44 (15%), no drainage procedure; 197 (67%), pyloromyotomy/pyloroplasty; 8 (3%), dilation alone; 44 (15%), dilation plus onabotulinumtoxinA. Aspiration occurred more frequently when no pyloric intervention was performed (5 of 44 [11.4%] versus 6 of 249 [2.4%], p = 0.030). The incidences of anastomotic leak (18 [6.1%]) and gastric outlet obstruction (5 [1.7%]) were statistically similar among groups. Subgroup analysis demonstrated persistence of these findings when limiting the comparison to transthoracic esophagectomies. Major complications directly related to pyloroplasty/pyloromyotomy occurred in 2 patients (0.6%), including 1 death (0.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that omission of pyloric intervention at the index operation results in more frequent aspiration events. The combination of dilation plus onabotulinumtoxinA provided for a similar complication profile compared with surgical drainage. Future prospective comparisons are needed to evaluate these short-term effects of pyloric intervention as well as long-term sequelae such as dumping syndrome and bile reflux.

Short-term outcomes of minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy represents the gold standard in the treatment of resectable esophageal carcinoma. This retrospective study evaluated the significance of minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (MIILE) for the treatment of esophageal carcinoma.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 269 patients with esophageal carcinoma who received Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in our center between October 2011 and January 2013. Of those 269 patients, 106 underwent MIILE and 163 underwent open Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (OILE). The clinicopathologic factors, operational factors, and postoperative complications were compared.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar in terms of age, sex, smoking history, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, tumor location, preoperative staging, and incidence of comorbidities. The MIILE approach was associated with a significant decrease in surgical blood loss (p=0.04), chest tube duration (p=0.02), and postoperative stay (p=0.02) relative to the OILE approach. The postoperative in-hospital mortality and total morbidity did not differ between the two groups. The MIILE approach was associated with significantly fewer wound infections than the OILE approach (p=0.04). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the number of total lymph nodes dissected (p=0.69) or the locations of the total lymph nodes dissected (p=0.42).

CONCLUSIONS

Our MIILE technique can be safely and effectively performed for intrathoracic anastomosis during esophageal operations with favorable early outcomes.

Barrett's esophagus: cancer and molecular biology

The following paper on the molecular biology of Barrett's esophagus (BE) includes commentaries on signaling pathways central to the development of BE including Hh, NF-κB, and IL-6/STAT3; surgical approaches for esophagectomy and classification of lesions by appropriate therapy; the debate over the merits of minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open surgery; outcomes for patients with pharyngolaryngoesophagectomy; the applications of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy; animal models examining the surgical models of BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma; the roles of various morphogens and Cdx2 in BE; and the use of in vitro BE models for chemoprevention studies.

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.