Symptomatic diaphragmatic herniation following open and minimally invasive oesophagectomy: experience from a UK specialist unit

Postesophagectomy Diaphragmatic Prolapse after Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE)

BACKGROUND

Postesophagectomy diaphragmatic prolapse (PDP) is a major complication after esophagectomy with significant mortality and morbidity. However, in the current literature, treatment and outcomes are not evaluated for patients undergoing an Ivor Lewis Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (IL-RAMIE). The aim of this study is to evaluate the incidence of PDP after IL-RAMIE. Moreover, the study aims to determine whether using a minimally invasive approach in the management of PDP after an IL-RAMIE procedure is safe and feasible.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study includes all patients who received an IL-RAMIE at our high-volume center (>200 esophagectomies/year) between April 2017 and December 2022 and developed PDP. The analysis focuses on time to prolapse, symptoms, treatment, surgical method, and recurrence rates of these patients.

RESULTS

A total of 185 patients underwent an IL-RAMIE at our hospital. Eleven patients (5.9%) developed PDP. Patients presented with PDP after a medium time of 241 days with symptoms like reflux, nausea, vomiting, and pain. One-third of these patients did not suffer from any symptoms. In all cases, a CT scan was performed in which the colon transversum always presented as the herniated organ. In one patient, prolapse of the small intestine, pancreas, and greater omentum also occurred. A total of 91% of these patients received a revisional surgery in a minimally invasive manner with a mean hospital stay of 12 days. In four patients, PDP recurred (36%) after 13, 114, 119 and 237 days, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that a minimally invasive approach in repositioning PDP is a safe and effective option after IL-RAMIE.

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.

Increased risk of diaphragmatic herniation following esophagectomy with a minimally invasive abdominal approach

OBJECTIVE

Diaphragmatic herniation is a rare complication following esophagectomy, associated with risks of aspiration pneumonia, bowel obstruction, and strangulation. Repair can be challenging due to the presence of the gastric conduit. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the incidence and risk factors associated with diaphragmatic herniation following esophagectomy, the timing and mode of presentation, and outcomes of repair.

METHODS

A systematic search using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines was performed using four major databases. A meta-analysis of diaphragmatic herniation incidence following esophagectomies with a minimally invasive abdominal (MIA) approach compared with open esophagectomies was conducted. Qualitative analysis was performed for tumor location, associated symptoms, time to presentation, and outcomes of postdiaphragmatic herniation repair.

RESULTS

This systematic review consisted of 17,052 patients from 32 studies. The risk of diaphragmatic herniation was 2.74 times higher in MIA esophagectomy compared with open esophagectomy, with pooled incidence of 6.0% versus 3.2%, respectively. Diaphragmatic herniation was more commonly seen following surgery for distal esophageal tumors. Majority of patients (64%) were symptomatic at diagnosis. Presentation within 30 days of operation occurred in 21% of cases and is twice as likely to require emergent repair with increased surgical morbidity. Early diaphragmatic herniation recurrence and cardiorespiratory complications are common sequelae following hernia repair.

CONCLUSIONS

In the era of MIA esophagectomy, one has to be cognizant of the increased risk of diaphragmatic herniation and its sequelae. Failure to recognize early diaphragmatic herniation can result in catastrophic consequences. Increased vigilance and decreased threshold for imaging during this period is warranted.

Diaphragmatic herniation after esophagogastric surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

The anatomy of the esophageal hiatus is altered during esophagogastric surgery with an increased risk of postoperative hiatus hernia (HH). The purpose of this article was to examine the current evidence on the surgical management and outcomes associated with HH after esophagogastric surgery for cancer.

Materials and methods

Systematic review and meta-analysis. Web of Science, PubMed, and EMBASE data sets were consulted.

Results

Twenty-seven studies were included for a total of 404 patients requiring surgical treatment for HH after esophagogastric surgery. The age of the patients ranged from 35 to 85 years, and the majority were males (82.3%). Abdominal pain, nausea/vomiting, and dyspnea were the commonly reported symptoms. An emergency repair was required in 51.5%, while a minimally invasive repair was performed in 48.5%. Simple suture cruroplasty and mesh reinforced repair were performed in 65% and 35% of patients, respectively. The duration between the index procedure and HH repair ranged from 3 to 144 months, with the majority (67%) occurring within 24 months. The estimated pooled prevalence rates of pulmonary complications, anastomotic leak, overall morbidity, and mortality were 14.1% (95% CI = 8.0–22.0%), 1.4% (95% CI = 0.8–2.2%), 35% (95% CI = 20.0–54.0%), and 5.0% (95% CI = 3.0–8.0%), respectively. The postoperative follow-up ranged from 1 to 110 months (mean = 24) and the pooled prevalence of HH recurrence was 16% (95% CI = 13.0–21.6%).

Conclusions

Current evidence reporting data for HH after esophagogastric surgery is narrow. The overall postoperative pulmonary complications, overall morbidity, and mortality are 14%, 35%, and 5%, respectively. Additional studies are required to define indications and treatment algorithm and evaluate the best technique for crural repair at the index operation in an attempt to minimize the risk of HH.

Trans-hiatal herniation following esophagectomy or gastrectomy: retrospective single-center experiences with a potential surgical emergency

PURPOSE

Trans-hiatal herniation after esophago-gastric surgery is a potentially severe complication due to the risk of bowel incarceration and cardiac or respiratory complaints. However, measures for prevention and treatment options are based on a single surgeon´s experiences and small case series in the literature.

METHODS

Retrospective single-center analysis on patients who underwent surgical repair of trans-hiatal hernia following gastrectomy or esophagectomy from 01/2003 to 07/2020 regarding clinical symptoms, hernia characteristics, pre-operative imaging, hernia repair technique and perioperative outcome.

RESULTS

Trans-hiatal hernia repair was performed in 9 patients following abdomino-thoracic esophagectomy (40.9%), in 8 patients following trans-hiatal esophagectomy (36.4%) and in 5 patients following conventional gastrectomy (22.7%). Gastrointestinal symptoms with bowel obstruction and pain were mostly prevalent (63.6 and 59.1%, respectively), two patients were asymptomatic. Transverse colon (54.5%) and small intestine (77.3%) most frequently prolapsed into the left chest after esophagectomy (88.2%) and into the dorsal mediastinum after gastrectomy (60.0%). Half of the patients had signs of incarceration in pre-operative imaging, 10 patients underwent emergency surgery. However, bowel resection was only necessary in one patient. Hernia repair was performed by suture cruroplasty without (n = 12) or with mesh reinforcement (n = 5) or tension-free mesh interposition (n = 5). Postoperative pleural complications were most frequently observed, especially in patients who underwent any kind of mesh repair. Three patients developed recurrency, of whom two underwent again surgical repair.

CONCLUSION

Trans-hiatal herniation after esophago-gastric surgery is rare but relevant. The role of surgical repair in asymptomatic patients is disputed. However, early hernia repair prevents patients from severe complications. Measures for prevention and adequate closure techniques are not yet defined.

Hiatal Hernia with Acute Obstructive Symptoms After Minimally Invasive Oesophagectomy

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the incidence, treatment and postoperative outcomes of an acute hiatal hernia (HH) after totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (tMIE) for oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

The incidence and treatment of acute HH were analysed from our prospective database including all patients that were surgically treated for oesophageal cancer in the period between January 2011 and December 2018.

RESULTS

Within the study period, the database contained 307 patients that underwent minimally invasive oesophagectomy. Patients' characteristics were in line with the literature of Western data. The incidence of acute HH was 2.6% (N = 8). All patients presented with gastro-intestinal obstruction symptoms, that required acute operation, repositioning of the intrathoracic organs in combination with a crural repair. Mesh reinforcement was used in 38% (N = 3). In two patients, the intestines were partially resected due to ischemia. Postoperative complications, as atrial fibrillation, respiratory failure and anastomotic leakage, were seen in 63% (N = 5). Recurrence-rate was 38% (N = 3).

CONCLUSIONS

This present study demonstrates that an acute HH after tMIE is a serious complication with an incidence of 2.6%. When symptomatic and acute, HH requires surgical intervention and has high postoperative morbidity and recurrence-rate. Therefore, this requires treatment in a centre specialised in oesophageal surgery.

Hiatal hernia after oesophagectomy: a large European survey

OBJECTIVES

Hiatal hernias (HH) after oesophagectomy are rare, and their surgical management is not well standardized. Our goal was to report on the management of HH after oesophagectomy in high-volume tertiary European French-speaking centres.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective multicentre study among 19 European French-speaking departments of upper gastrointestinal and/or thoracic surgery. All patients scheduled or operated on for the repair of an HH after oesophagectomy were collected between 2000 and 2016. Demographics, details of the initial procedure, surgical management and long-term outcome were analysed.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine of 6608 (1.2%) patients who had oesophagectomies were included in the study. The postoesophagectomy diagnostic interval of an HH after oesophagectomy was ≤90 days (n = 17; 21%), 13 were emergency cases; between 91 days and 1 year, n = 21 (27%), 13 in emergency; ≥1 year, n = 41 (52%), 17 in emergency. The time to occurrence of HH after oesophagectomy was shorter after laparoscopy (median 308 days; interquartile range 150-693) compared to that after laparotomy (median 562 days, interquartile range 138-1768; P = 0.01). The incidence of HH after oesophagectomy was 0.73% (22/3010) after open surgery and 1.4% (26/1761) after laparoscopy (P = 0.03). Among the 79 patients, 78 were operated on: 35 had laparotomies (45%), 19 had laparoscopies (24%) and 24 (31%) had transthoracic approaches. Among the 43 urgent surgeries, 35 were open (25 laparotomies and 10 transthoracic approaches) and 8 were laparoscopies (conversion rate, 25%). Nine patients required bowel resections. Morbidity occurred in 36 (46%) patients with 1 postoperative death (1.2%). During the follow-up period, recurrent HH after oesophagectomy requiring revisional surgery developed in 8 (6 days-26 months) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical management of HH after oesophagectomy could be done by laparoscopy in patients with scheduled surgery but laparotomy or thoracotomy was preferred in urgent situations. The incidence of HH after oesophagectomy is higher and its onset earlier when laparoscopy is used at the initial oesophagectomy.

Hiatal Hernia after Esophagectomy: An Underappreciated Complication?

BACKGROUND

The natural history of hiatal herniation of small and/or large bowel post-esophagectomy (HHBPE) in the current era of improving long-term survival and evolving surgical technique is unknown. The aim of this study was to describe the rate and risk factors of HHBPE at our hospital.

METHODS

Patients undergoing esophagectomy between January 2011 and June 2017 were included if both follow-up information and axial imaging were available beyond 3 months post-esophagectomy. Patient characteristics, disease information, and treatment factors were all included in univariate analysis comparing patients with and without HHBPE, and multivariate regression was used to identify significant independent risk factors associated with HHBPE.

RESULTS

Of 310 esophagectomy patients analyzed, 258 patients were included in the study, with 79 patients (31%) showing evidence of an HHBPE and an overall median follow-up of 24 months; 44 of 79 patients (56%) had symptoms possibly referable to HHBPE and 17 of 79 patients (22%) underwent surgical repair. On univariate analysis, neoadjuvant therapy (n = 176), higher clinical stage, minimally invasive approach (n = 154), and transhiatal esophagectomy (n = 189) were significant predictors of HHBPE (p < 0.05). On multivariate analysis, neoadjuvant therapy and transhiatal approach remained significant independent predictors (p < 0.05). The rate of HHBPE was 44% in the 131 patients (51%) that had both factors.

CONCLUSIONS

HHBPE in the current era of neoadjuvant therapy and minimally invasive esophagectomy is common. HHBPE can cause gastrointestinal symptoms, but operation to repair HHBPE is uncommon on intermediate follow-up. Additional study and long-term follow-up are required to fully assess the impact of HHBPE and to potentially modify surgical practice to prevent or minimize HHBPE.

Enterothorax After Hepatic Surgery: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Enterothorax (ET) is a rare complication after hepatic surgery. The literature in this field is limited and mainly based on case reports. The aim of this study was to review our department's experience.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 602 patients who underwent hepatic resection between November 2008 and December 2016. Major hepatic surgery (n = 321) was defined as right or extended right hepatectomy (n = 227), left or extended left hepatectomy (n = 63), trisegmentectomy (n = 13), and living donor liver transplantation (n = 18). ET cases were identified by analyzing clinical courses and radiological imaging.

RESULTS

ET was observed in five out of 602 patients (0.8%). All patients developed the complication after major hepatic surgery (five out of 321, 1.6%). ET exclusively occurred after right (n = 3) or extended right hepatectomy (n = 2). Median time to diagnosis was 22 months. Radiological imaging showed herniation of small (n = 2), large bowel (n = 2), or omental fat (n = 1) with a median diaphragmatic defect of 3.9 cm. Two patients presented with acute incarceration and underwent emergency surgery, one patient reported recurrent pain and underwent elective repair, and two patients refused surgery. Follow-up imaging in two operated patients showed no recurrence of ET after 36 and 8 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients after right hepatectomy have a substantial risk of ET. Acute right upper quadrant pain and/or dyspnea after hepatectomy should be investigated with adequate radiological imaging. Elective surgical repair of ET is recommended to avoid emergency surgery in case of incarceration.

Emergency Laparoscopic Repair of Giant Left Diaphragmatic Hernia following Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Description of a Case and Review of the Literature

Postoperative diaphragmatic hernia (PDH) is an increasingly reported complication of esophageal cancer surgery. PDH occurs more frequently when minimally invasive techniques are employed, but very little is known about its pathogenesis. Currently, no consensus exists concerning preventive measures and its management. A 71-year-old man underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Three months later, he developed a giant PDH, which was repaired by direct suture via laparoscopic approach. A hypertensive pneumothorax occurred during surgery. This complication was managed by the anaesthesiologist through a high fraction of inspired O₂ and several recruitment manoeuvres. The patient remained free of hernia recurrence until he died of neoplastic cachexia 5 months later. Laparoscopic repair of PDH may be safe and effective even in the acute setting and in the case of massive herniation. However, surgeons and anaesthesiologists should be aware of the risk of intraoperative pneumothorax and be prepared to treat it promptly.

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.

Hiatal Herniation After Transhiatal Esophagectomy: an Underreported Complication

INTRODUCTION

The incidence and presentation of hiatal hernias after esophagectomy (HHAE) are not well characterized, and may be changing with increased survival from esophageal cancer. The aims of this study were to define the incidence and presentation of HHAE in our population of patients undergoing transhiatal esophagectomy (THE), as it may have implications for management.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study (2004-2013) was performed of esophageal cancer patients who underwent THE. To determine the presence or absence of HHAE independent of the original radiology report, a radiologist sub-specializing in body imaging independently reviewed post-operative computed tomography images. A time-to-event competing risk analysis was performed to estimate the cumulative incidence of HHAE.

RESULTS

Among 192 patients, the two-year cumulative incidence of HHAE was 14 % (95 % confidence interval 7.5-21 %). Of the 22 patients determined to have HHAE by independent expert radiologist review, only 11 (50 %) were identified by the original interpreting radiologist. Seven patients were symptomatic, and each underwent hiatal hernia repair (4 via laparotomy, 3 via laparoscopy).

CONCLUSION

HHAE is not rare and is often unrecognized. As more patients with esophageal cancer survive, the number of patients becoming symptomatic and requiring repair may also rise. Therefore, it is important to consider this diagnosis when following patients long-term after esophagectomy.

Diaphragmatic hernia following oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer - Are we too radical?

BACKGROUND

Diaphragmatic herniation (DH) of abdominal contents into the thorax after oesophageal resection is a recognised and serious complication of surgery. While differences in pressure between the abdominal and thoracic cavities are important, the size of the hiatal defect is something that can be influenced surgically. As with all oncological surgery, safe resection margins are essential without adversely affecting necessary anatomical structure and function. However very little has been published looking at the extent of the hiatal resection. We aim to present a case series of patients who developed DH herniation post operatively in order to raise discussion about the ideal extent of surgical resection required.

METHODS

We present a series of cases of two male and one female who had oesophagectomies for moderately and poorly differentiated adenocarcinomas of the lower oesophagus who developed post-operative DH. We then conducted a detailed literature review using Medline, Pubmed and Google Scholar to identify existing guidance to avoid this complication with particular emphasis on the extent of hiatal resection.

DISCUSSION

Extended incision and partial resection of the diaphragm are associated with an increased risk of postoperative DH formation. However, these more extensive excisions can ensure clear surgical margins. Post-operative herniation can be an early or late complication of surgery and despite the clear importance of hiatal resection only one paper has been published on this subject which recommends a more limited resection than was carried out in our cases.

CONCLUSION

This case series investigated the recommended extent of hiatal dissection in oesophageal surgery. Currently there is no clear guidance available on this subject and further studies are needed to ascertain the optimum resection margin that results in the best balance of oncological parameters vs. post operative morbidity.