There is no correlation between a delayed gastric conduit emptying and the occurrence of an anastomotic leakage after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy

Omission of intraoperative pyloric procedures in minimally invasive esophagectomy: assessing the impact on patients

Pyloroplasty or pyloromyotomy is often undertaken during esophagectomy to aid gastric emptying postoperatively. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) frequently omits a pyloric procedure. The impact on perioperative outcomes and the need for subsequent interventions is unclear. This study assesses the requirements for endoscopic balloon dilation of the pylorus (EPD) following MIE. Patients undergoing MIE from 2016 to 2020 were reviewed. Patients undergoing open resection, or an intraoperative pyloric procedure were excluded. Demographic, clinical and pathological data were reviewed. Univariable and multivariable analysis were performed as appropriate. In total, 171 patients underwent MIE. There were no differences in age (median 65 vs. 65 years, P = 0.6), pathological stage (P = 0.10) or ASA status (P = 0.52) between those requiring and not requiring endoscopic pyloric dilation (EPD). Forty-three patients (25%) required EPD, with a total of 71 procedures. Twenty-seven patients (16%) had EPD on their index admission. Seventy-five patients (43%) had a postoperative complication. Higher ASA status was associated with increased requirement for EPD (odds ratio 10.8, P = 0.03). On multivariable analysis, there was no association between the need for a pyloric procedure and overall survival (P = 0.14). Eight patients (5%) required insertion of a feeding jejunostomy in the postoperative period, with no difference between those with or without EPD (P = 0.11). Two patients required subsequent surgical pyloromyotomy for delayed gastric emptying. Although pyloroplasty or pyloromyotomy can safely be excluded during MIE, a quarter of patients will require postoperative EPD procedures. The impact of excluding pyloric procedures on gastric emptying requires further study.

Robot-assisted transthoracic hybrid esophagectomy versus open and laparoscopic hybrid esophagectomy: propensity score matched analysis of short-term outcome

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive en-bloc esophagectomy is associated with a reduction of postoperative morbidity. This was demonstrated for both total minimally invasive and hybrid esophagectomy. However, little is known about any benefits of robotic assistance compared to the conventional minimally invasive technique, especially in hybrid procedures.

METHODS

For this retrospective study, all consecutive patients who had undergone elective esophagectomy with circular stapled intrathoracic anastomosis using the open and the minimally invasive hybrid technique at the University Hospital Magdeburg, from January 2010 to March 2021 were considered for analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 137 patients (60.4%) had undergone open esophagectomy. In 45 patients (19.8%), the laparoscopic hybrid technique and in 45 patients (19.8%), the robot-assisted hybrid technique were applied. In propensity score matching analysis comparing the open with the robotic hybrid technique, significant differences were found in favor of the robotic technique (postoperative morbidity, p < 0.01; hospital length of stay, p < 0.01; number of lymph nodes retrieved, p = 0.048). In propensity score matching analysis comparing the laparoscopic with the robotic hybrid technique, a significant reduction of the rate of postoperative delayed gastric emptying (p = 0.02) was found for patients who had undergone robotic esophagectomy. However, the operation time was significantly longer (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

En-bloc esophagectomy using the robotic hybrid technique is associated with a significant reduction of postoperative morbidity and of the hospital length of stay when compared to the open approach. However, when compared to the laparoscopic hybrid technique, only few advantages could be demonstrated.