Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy: meta-analysis of outcomes

Dynamic volume-outcome association for esophagectomies: Do current volume thresholds still apply?

BACKGROUND

It is unknown if the current minimum case volume recommendation of 20 cases per year per hospital is applicable to contemporary practice.

METHODS

Patients undergoing esophageal resection between 2005 and 2015 were identified in the National Cancer Database. High, medium, and low-volume hospital strata were defined by quartiles. Adjusted odds ratios and adjusted 30-day mortality between low-, medium-, and high-volume hospitals were calculated using logistic regression analyses and trended over time.

RESULTS

Only 1.1% of hospitals had ≥20 annual cases. The unadjusted 30-day mortality for esophagectomy was 3.8% overall. Unadjusted and adjusted 30-day mortality trended down for all three strata between 2005 and 2015, with disproportionate decreases for low-volume and medium-volume versus high-volume hospitals. By 2015, adjusted 30-day mortality was similar in medium- and high-volume hospitals (odds ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 0.96-1.91). For hospitals with 20 or more annual cases the adjusted 30-day mortality was 2.7% overall. To achieve this same 30-day mortality the minimum volume threshold had lowered to 7 annual cases by 2015.

CONCLUSION

Only 1.1% of hospitals meet current volume recommendations for esophagectomy. Differential improvements in postoperative mortality at low- and medium- versus high-volume hospitals have led to 7 cases in 2015 achieving the same adjusted 30-day mortality as 20 cases in the overall cohort. Lowering volume thresholds for esophagectomy in contemporary practice would potentially increase the proportion of hospitals able to meet volume standards and increase access to quality care without sacrificing quality.

[Evidence for Minimal Invasive Oesophageal Resection]

In the course of the last 20 years, minimally invasive therapy has become much more important in all areas. In particular, surgical procedures have been established in oncological surgery, even without generating the necessary evidence to assure that the quality is equal to that achieved with open procedures. For this purpose, it has only been in recent years that appropriate randomised controlled studies followed by meta-analyses have been carried out. In this article, we summarise the evidence for minimally invasive resection of the oesophagus and review current literature for each procedure.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American Society for Radiation Oncology Updated Clinical Practice Guidelines on Multimodality Therapy for Locally Advanced Cancer of the Esophagus or Gastroesophageal Junction

Outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer have improved over the last decade with the implementation of multimodality therapy. There are currently no comprehensive guidelines addressing multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer that have incorporated the input of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. To address the need for multidisciplinary input in the management of esophageal cancer and to meet current best practices for clinical practice guidelines, the current guidelines were created as a collaboration between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Physician representatives chose 8 key clinical questions pertinent to the care of patients with locally advanced, resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (excluding cervical location). A comprehensive literature review was performed identifying 227 articles that met the inclusion criteria covering the use of induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy before surgery, optimal radiation dose, the value of esophagectomy, timing of esophagectomy, the approach and extent of lymphadenectomy, the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and the value of adjuvant therapy after resection. The relevant data were reviewed and voted on by the panel with 80% of the authors, with 75% agreement on class and level of evidence. These data were then complied into the guidelines document.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American Society for Radiation Oncology Updated Clinical Practice Guidelines on Multimodality Therapy for Locally Advanced Cancer of the Esophagus or Gastroesophageal Junction

Outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer have improved over the last decade with the implementation of multimodality therapy. There are currently no comprehensive guidelines addressing multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer that have incorporated the input of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. To address the need for multidisciplinary input in the management of esophageal cancer and to meet current best practices for clinical practice guidelines, the current guidelines were created as a collaboration between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Physician representatives chose 8 key clinical questions pertinent to the care of patients with locally advanced, resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (excluding cervical location). A comprehensive literature review was performed identifying 227 articles that met the inclusion criteria covering the use of induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy before surgery, optimal radiation dose, the value of esophagectomy, timing of esophagectomy, the approach and extent of lymphadenectomy, the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and the value of adjuvant therapy after resection. The relevant data were reviewed and voted on by the panel with 80% of the authors, with 75% agreement on class and level of evidence. These data were then complied into the guidelines document.

The Perioperative and Operative Management of Esophageal and Gastric Cancer

Optimal management of esophageal and gastric cancer during the perioperative period requires a coordinated multidisciplinary treatment effort. Accurate staging guides treatment strategy. Advances in minimally invasive surgery and endoscopy have reduced risks associated with resection while maintaining oncological standards. Although the standard perioperative chemo-and radiotherapy regimens have not yet been established, randomized control trials exploring this subject show promising results.

Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive esophagectomies versus open esophagectomies: an umbrella review

Traditionally, esophageal oncological resections have been performed via open approaches with well-documented levels of morbidity and mortality complicating the postoperative course. In contemporary terms, minimally invasive approaches have garnered sustained support in all areas of surgery, and there has been an exponential adaptation of this technology in upper GI surgery with the advent of laparoscopic and robotic techniques. The current literature, while growing, is inconsistent in reporting on the benefits of minimally invasive esophagectomies (MIEs) and this makes it difficult to ascertain best practice. The objective of this review was to critically appraise the current evidence addressing the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of MIEs versus open esophagectomies. A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching nine electronic databases to identify any systematic reviews published on this topic and recommended Joanna Briggs Institute approach to critical appraisal, study selection, data extraction and data synthesis was used to report the findings. A total of 13 systematic reviews of moderate to good quality encompassing 143 primary trials and 36,763 patients were included in the final synthesis. Eleven reviews examined safety parameters and found a generalized benefit of MIE. Efficacy was evaluated by eight systematic reviews and found each method to be equivalent. There were limited data to judiciously appraise cost-effectiveness as this was only evaluated in one review involving a single trial. There is improved safety and equivalent efficacy associated with MIE when compared with open esophagectomy. Cost-effectiveness of MIE cannot be sufficiently supported at this point in time. Further studies, especially those focused on cost-effectiveness are needed to strengthen the existing evidence to inform policy makers on feasibility of increased assimilation of this technology into clinical practice.

Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on esophagectomies in esophageal cancer: The superiority of minimally invasive surgery

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses, with many limitations, have described the beneficial nature of minimal invasive procedures.

AIM

To compare all modalities of esophagectomies to each other from the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Reference Citation Analysis (https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com/) and CENTRAL databases to identify RCTs according to the following population, intervention, control, outcome (commonly known as PICO): P: Patients with resectable esophageal cancer; I/C: Transthoracic, transhiatal, minimally invasive (thoracolaparoscopic), hybrid, and robot-assisted esophagectomy; O: Survival, total adverse events, adverse events in subgroups, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. We used the Bayesian approach and the random effects model. We presented the geometry of the network, results with probabilistic statements, estimated intervention effects and their 95% confidence interval (CI), and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve to rank the interventions.

RESULTS

We included 11 studies in our analysis. We found a significant difference in postoperative pulmonary infection, which favored the minimally invasive intervention compared to transthoracic surgery (risk ratio 0.49; 95%CI: 0.23 to 0.99). The operation time was significantly shorter for the transhiatal approach compared to transthoracic surgery (mean difference -85 min; 95%CI: -150 to -29), hybrid intervention (mean difference -98 min; 95%CI: -190 to -9.4), minimally invasive technique (mean difference -130 min; 95%CI: -210 to -50), and robot-assisted esophagectomy (mean difference -150 min; 95%CI: -240 to -53). Other comparisons did not yield significant differences.

CONCLUSION

Based on our results, the implication of minimally invasive esophagectomy should be favored.

Outcomes of robotic esophagectomy

Esophagectomy has long been considered the standard of care for early-stage (≤ T2N0) esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), using a combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approach, was first performed in the 1990s and showed significant improvements over open approaches. Refinement of MIE arrived in the form of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in 2004. MIE is a challenging procedure for which consensus on optimal technique is still elusive. Although nonrobotic MIE confers significant advantages over open approaches, MIE remains associated with stubbornly high rates of complications, including pneumonia, aspiration, arrhythmia, anastomotic leakage, surgical site infection, and vocal cord palsy. RAMIE was envisioned to improve operative-associated morbidity while achieving equivalent or superior oncologic outcomes to nonrobotic MIE. However, owing to RAMIE’s significant upfront costs, steep learning curve, and other requirements, adoption remains less than widespread and convincing evidence supporting its use from well-designed studies is lacking. In this review, we compare operative, oncologic, and quality-of-life outcomes between open esophagectomy, nonrobotic MIE, and RAMIE. Although RAMIE remains a relatively new and underexplored modality, several studies in the literature show that it is feasible and results in similar outcomes to other MIE approaches. Moreover, RAMIE has been associated with favorable patient satisfaction and quality of life.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and individual patient data comparing minimally invasive with open oesophagectomy for cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) for oesophageal cancer may reduce surgical complications compared with open oesophagectomy. MIO is, however, technically challenging and may impair optimal oncological resection. The aim of the present study was to assess if MIO for cancer is beneficial.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL was performed and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIO with open oesophagectomy were included in a meta-analysis. Survival was analysed using individual patient data. Random-effects model was used for pooled estimates of perioperative effects.

RESULTS

Among 3219 articles, six RCTs were identified including 822 patients. Three-year overall survival (56 (95 per cent c.i. 49 to 62) per cent for MIO versus 52 (95 per cent c.i. 44 to 60) per cent for open; P = 0.54) and disease-free survival (54 (95 per cent c.i. 47 to 61) per cent versus 50 (95 per cent c.i. 42 to 58) per cent; P = 0.38) were comparable. Overall complication rate was lower for MIO (odds ratio 0.33 (95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.53); P < 0.010) mainly due to fewer pulmonary complications (OR 0.44 (95 per cent c.i. 0.27 to 0.72); P < 0.010), including pneumonia (OR 0.41 (95 per cent c.i. 0.22 to 0.77); P < 0.010).

CONCLUSION

MIO for cancer is associated with a lower risk of postoperative complications compared with open resection. Overall and disease-free survival are comparable for the two techniques.

LAY SUMMARY

Oesophagectomy for cancer is associated with a high risk of complications. A minimally invasive approach might be less traumatic, leading to fewer complications and may also improve oncological outcome. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing minimally invasive to open oesophagectomy was performed. The analysis showed that the minimally invasive approach led to fewer postoperative complications, in particular, fewer pulmonary complications. Survival after surgery was comparable for the two techniques.

Ureteral injuries in colorectal surgery and the impact of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted approaches

BACKGROUND

Ureteral injury is a feared complication in colorectal surgery that has been increasing over the past decade. Some have attributed this to an increased adoption of minimally invasive surgery (MIS), but the literature is hardly conclusive. In this study we aim to further assess the overall trend of ureteral injuries in colorectal surgery, and investigate propensity adjusted contributions from open and MIS to include robotic-assisted surgery.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of colorectal surgeries from 2006 to 2016 using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify predisposing and protective factors. Demographics, hospital factors, and case-mix differences for open and MIS were accounted for via propensity analysis. The NIS coding structure changed in 2015, which could introduce a potential source of incongruity in complication rates over time. As a result, all statistical analyses included only the first nine years of data, or were conducted before and after the change for comparison.

RESULTS

Of 514,162 colorectal surgeries identified there were 1598 ureteral injuries (0.31%). Ureteral injuries were found to be increasing through 2015 (2.3/1000 vs 3.3/1000; p < 0.001) and through the coding transition to 2016 (4.8/1000; p < 0.001). This trend was entirely accounted for by injuries made during open surgery, with decreasing injury rates for MIS over time. Adjusted odds ratio (OR) for ureteral injury with all MIS vs. open cases was 0.81 (95% CI 0.70-0.93, p = 0.003) and for robotic-assisted surgery alone versus open cases was 0.50 (95% CI 0.33-0.77, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence rate of ureteral injuries during open colorectal surgery is increasing over time, but have been stable or decreasing for MIS cases. These findings hold even after using propensity score analysis. More research is needed to further delineate the impact of MIS and robotic-assisted surgery on ureteral injuries.

Brazilian Group of Gastrointestinal Tumours' consensus guidelines for the management of oesophageal cancer

Oesophageal cancer is among the ten most common types of cancer worldwide. More than 80% of the cases and deaths related to the disease occur in developing countries. Local socio-economic, epidemiologic and healthcare particularities led us to create a Brazilian guideline for the management of oesophageal and oesophagogastric junction (OGJ) carcinomas. The Brazilian Group of Gastrointestinal Tumours invited 50 physicians with different backgrounds, including radiology, pathology, endoscopy, nuclear medicine, genetics, oncological surgery, radiotherapy and clinical oncology, to collaborate. This document was prepared based on an extensive review of topics related to heredity, diagnosis, staging, pathology, endoscopy, surgery, radiation, systemic therapy (including checkpoint inhibitors) and follow-up, which was followed by presentation, discussion and voting by the panel members. It provides updated evidence-based recommendations to guide clinical management of oesophageal and OGJ carcinomas in several scenarios and clinical settings.

Robot-Assisted Esophagectomy After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation-Current Status and Future Prospects

Multimodality treatment with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery has become the standard of care for esophageal cancer. In the recent years, there has been a shift in focus of surgical approach from open esophagectomy to minimally invasive esophagectomy. Robot-assisted esophagectomy is being performed more often in centers across the world. However, there is limited data on role of robot-assisted esophagectomy in patients who have received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Initial reports have shown that integrating neoadjuvant therapy to robot-assisted esophagectomy is feasible and safe. With the growing popularity of robot-assisted surgery worldwide among both surgeons and patients, understanding the impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiation on the procedure and its oncological outcome seems worthwhile. In the present study, we present a review of available literature on the feasibility and safety of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

Minimal Invasive Esophagectomy-a New Dawn of EsophagealSurgery

Surgery is the mainstay of esophageal cancer. However, esophagectomy is a major surgical trauma on a patient with high morbidity and mortality. The intent of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is to decrease the degree of surgical trauma and perioperative morbidity associated with open surgery, and provide faster recovery and shorter hospital stay with the equivalent oncological outcome. It also allows for lesser pulmonary morbidity, less blood loss, less pain, and a better quality of life. MIE is safe and effective but has a steep learning curve with high technical expertise. Recently, it is increasingly accepted and adopted all over the globe. In this article, we discuss the safety, efficacy, short-term, and oncological outcomes of thoracoscopic- and laparoscopic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy and robotic surgery compared with open esophagectomy with a special focus on the Indian perspective.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy: clinical evidence and surgical techniques

Background

Surgical esophagectomy plays a crucial role in the curative and palliative treatment of esophageal cancer. Thereby, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly applied all over the world. Combining minimal invasiveness with improved possibilities for meticulous dissection, robot-assisted minimal invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been implemented in many centers.

Purpose

This review focuses on the development of MIE as well as RAMIE and their value based on evidence in current literature.

Conclusion

Although MIE and RAMIE are highly complex procedures, they can be performed safely with improved postoperative outcome and equal oncological results compared with open esophagectomy (OE). RAMIE offers additional advantages regarding surgical dissection, lymphadenectomy, and extended indications for advanced tumors.

Minimally invasive techniques for transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oesophagectomy is a demanding operation that can be performed by different approaches including open surgery or a combination of minimal access techniques. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of open, minimally invasive and robotic oesophagectomy techniques for oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting open oesophagectomy, laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO), thoracoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (TAO), totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) or robotic MIO (RAMIO) for oesophagectomy. A network meta-analysis of intraoperative (operating time, blood loss), postoperative (overall complications, anastomotic leaks, chyle leak, duration of hospital stay) and oncological (R0 resection, lymphadenectomy) outcomes, and survival was performed.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight studies involving 32 315 patients were included in the network meta-analysis (open 17 824, 55·2 per cent; LAO 1576, 4·9 per cent; TAO 2421 7·5 per cent; MIO 9558, 29·6 per cent; RAMIO 917, 2·8 per cent). Compared with open oesophagectomy, both MIO and RAMIO were associated with less blood loss, significantly lower rates of pulmonary complications, shorter duration of stay and higher lymph node yield. There were no significant differences between surgical techniques in surgical-site infections, chyle leak, and 30- and 90-day mortality. MIO and RAMIO had better 1- and 5-year survival rates respectively compared with open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive and robotic techniques for oesophagectomy are associated with reduced perioperative morbidity and duration of hospital stay, with no compromise of oncological outcomes but no improvement in perioperative mortality.

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.

Postoperative short-term outcomes of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to synthesize the available evidence regarding short‐term outcomes between minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE).

Methods

Studies were identified by searching databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library up to March 2019 without language restrictions. Results of these searches were filtered according to a set of eligibility criteria and analyzed in line with PRISMA guidelines.

Results

There were 33 studies included with a total of 13 269 patients in our review, out of which 4948 cases were of MIE and 8321 cases were of OE. The pooled results suggested that MIE had a better outcome regarding all‐cause respiratory complications (RCs) (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.41–0.78, P = <0.001), in‐hospital duration (SMD = −0.51; 95% CI = −0.78−0.24; P = <0.001), and blood loss (SMD = −1.44; 95% CI = −1.95−0.93; P = <0.001). OE was associated with shorter duration of operation time, while no statistically significant differences were observed regarding other outcomes. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed for a number of different postoperative events.

Conclusions

Our study indicated that MIE had more favorable outcomes than OE from the perspective of short‐term outcomes. Further large‐scale, multicenter randomized control trials are needed to explore the long‐term survival outcomes after MIE versus OE.

Evaluation of Surgical Procedures that Affect the Hemodynamics Using the FloTrac System in Esophageal Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND/AIM

Esophagectomy is more invasive compared to other gastrointestinal surgery types. Perioperative circulatory management is important to avoid postoperative heart complications. The FloTrac sensor along with the Vigileo monitor is a minimally invasive haemodynamic monitoring device. Here, we examined different surgical procedures affecting hemodynamics using the FloTrac system in esophageal cancer patients following esophagectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-one patients undergoing postoperative monitoring with the FloTrac sensor/Vigileo monitor system following esophagectomy were included. Evaluation of cardiac index (CI) and stroke volume variation (SVV) measurements were performed by analyzing the number of aberrant values. We evaluated the correlation between the number of aberrant values of CI, SVV and surgical methods of esophagectomy and perioperative factors.

RESULTS

There was no significant correlation between the number of aberrant values of CI, SVV and operative approach or fields of lymphadenectomy. Regarding the reconstruction route following esophagectomy, there was a significant correlation between the number of aberrant values of CI, SVV and retrosternal route compared with other routes. There was a significant correlation between the number of aberrant values of SVV and preoperative heart complication.

CONCLUSION

Hemodynamic stability management using FloTrac/Vigileo system following esophagectomy is useful for safe performance of postoperative management of esophageal cancer patients.

Early Quality of Life Outcomes After Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive and Open Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy may improve some perioperative outcomes over open approaches; effects on quality of life are less clear.

METHODS

A prospective trial of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) and open esophagectomy was initiated, measuring quality of life via the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophageal and Brief Pain Inventory. Mixed generalized linear models assessed associations between quality of life scores over time and by surgery type.

RESULTS

In total, 106 patients underwent open esophagectomy; 64 underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (98% RAMIE). The groups did not differ in age, sex, comorbidities, histologic subtype, stage, or induction treatment (P = .42 to P > .95). Total Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophageal scores were lower at 1 month (P < .001), returned to near baseline by 4 months, and did not differ between groups (P = .83). Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity (P = .007) and interference (P = .004) were lower for RAMIE. RAMIE had lower estimated blood loss (250 vs 350 cm³; P < .001), shorter length of stay (9 vs 11 days; P < .001), fewer intensive care unit admissions (8% vs 20%; P = .033), more lymph nodes harvested (25 vs 22; P = .05), and longer surgical time (6.4 vs 5.4 hours; P < .001). Major complications (39% for RAMIE vs 52% for open esophagectomy; P > .95), anastomotic leak (3% vs 9%; P = .41), and 90-day mortality (2% vs 4%; P = .85) did not differ between groups. Pulmonary (14% vs 34%; P = .014) and infectious (17% vs 36%; P = .029) complications were lower for RAMIE.

CONCLUSIONS

RAMIE is associated with lower immediate postoperative pain severity and interference and decreased pulmonary and infectious complications. Ongoing data accrual will assess mid-term and long-term outcomes in this cohort.

Recent advances in thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Technical advances and developments in endoscopic equipment and thoracoscopic surgery have increased the popularity of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). However, there is currently no established scientific evidence supporting the use of MIE as an alternative to open esophagectomy (OE). To date, a number of single-institution studies and several meta-analyses have demonstrated acceptable short-term outcomes of thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, and we recently reported one of the largest propensity score-matched comparison studies between MIE and OE for esophageal cancer, based on a nationwide Japanese database. We found that, in general, MIE had a longer operative time and less blood loss than OE. Moreover, compared to OE, MIE was associated with a lower rate of pulmonary complications such as pneumonia, and both methods had similar mortality rates. Although MIE may reduce the occurrence of postoperative respiratory complications, MIE and OE seem to have comparable short-term outcomes. However, the oncological benefit to patients undergoing MIE remains to be scientifically proven, as no randomized controlled trials have been conducted to verify each method's impact on the long-term survival of cancer patients. An ongoing randomized phase III study (JCOG1409) is expected to determine the impact of each method with regard to short- and long-term outcomes.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy for Barrett's adenocarcinoma

Minimally invasive esophagectomy has become the preferred approach for invasive Barrett's adenocarcinoma because it can speed recovery and enhance patient's quality of life. Multiple minimally invasive surgical techniques have been described during the last two decades. Preoperative staging, anatomy and physiological patient's status, comorbidity, and experience of the surgical team should drive the choice of the surgical approach. The trans-thoracic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, either hybrid or totally minimal invasive, remains the preferred approach in these patients. Lymph node yield and short-term clinical outcomes have proven similar to open surgery, while quality of life appears improved. To establish a minimally invasive esophagectomy program, a steep learning curve and a multidisciplinary approach are required in order to provide optimal staging, personalized therapy, and adequate perioperative care. The role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of invasive Barrett's adenocarcinoma will continue to expand in synergy with enhanced recovery after surgery pathways.

Matched-pair comparisons of minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BACKGROUND

Open esophagectomy (OE) with radical lymphadenectomy is known as one of the most invasive digestive surgeries with the high rate of complications. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has developed very rapidly and has formed several available technical approaches. This systematic review and meta-analysis is aiming at how beneficial, and to what extent MIE resection really will be.

METHODS

A systematic literature search will be performed through May 31, 2018 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar for relevant articles published in any language. Randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, and propensity score matched comparative studies will be included. If data are sufficient, subgroup analyses will be conducted in different surgical procedures of MIE.

RESULTS

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

CONCLUSION

This will be the first systematic review and meta-analysis using data of randomized controlled, prospective, and propensity score matched comparative studies to compare the outcomes between MIE and OE updating to May 31, 2018.

Towards optimal intraoperative conditions in esophageal surgery: A review of literature for the prevention of esophageal anastomotic leakage

BACKGROUND

Esophageal anastomotic leakage (EAL) is a severe complication following gastric and esophageal surgery for cancer. Several non-modifiable, patient or surgery related risk factors for EAL have been identified, however, the contribution of modifiable intraoperative parameters remains undetermined. This review provides an overview of current literature on potentially modifiable intraoperative risk factors for EAL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched by two researchers independently. Clinical studies published in English between 1970 and January 2017 that evaluated the effect of intraoperative parameters on the development of EAL were included. Levels of evidence as defined by the Centre of Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM) were assigned to the studies.

RESULTS

A total of 25 articles were included in the final analysis. These articles show evidence that anemia, increased amount of blood loss, low pH and high pCO2 values, prolonged duration of procedure and lack of surgical experience independently increase the risk of EAL. Supplemental oxygen therapy, epidural analgesia and selective digestive decontamination seem to have a beneficial effect. Potential risk factors include blood pressure, requirement of blood products, vasopressor use and glucocorticoid administration, however the results are ambiguous.

CONCLUSION

Apart from fixed surgical and patient related factors, several intraoperative factors that can be modified in clinical practice can influence the risk of developing EAL. More prospective, observational studies are necessary focusing on modifiable intraoperative parameters to assess more evidence and to elucidate optimal values of these factors.

Fondaparinux versus nadroparin for thromboprophylaxis following minimally invasive esophagectomy: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The methodology of thromboprophylaxis post minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is unclear. Thus, we compared the efficacy and safety of fondaparinux and nadroparin on the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after MIE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, treatment-controlled study. Consecutive patients undergoing MIE randomly received a single dose of either nadroparin 2850 AxaIU (Group H) or fondaparinux 2.5 mg (Group F) daily. We used ultrasonography to identify deep vein thrombosis (DVT) on postoperative day 7. The coagulation status was examined using thromboelastography (TEG) prior to and at 0, 24, 48, and 72 h after the operation. Bleeding events were recorded during anticoagulation therapy and analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.

RESULTS

We randomly assigned the patients to Group H (n = 57) or Group F (n = 59). Symptomatic or asymptomatic DVT was identified in seven patients in Group H and one patient in Group F (12.28% vs. 1.69%, p = 0.031). Pulmonary embolism developed in one patient in Group H, and the VTE incidence was significantly lower in Group F than Group H (1.69% vs. 14.04%, RR: 0.121, 95% CI: 0.016-0.935, p = 0.016). TEG analysis showed a more inhibited coagulation profile of Group F compared with Group H reflected by the significantly prolonged R time at 48 h and 72 h after operation (6.8 ± 2.2 min vs. 8.4 ± 2.7 min, p = 0.005; 7.1 ± 1.6 min vs. 9.2 ± 3.7 min, p = 0.002). Bleeding events were not recorded in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Fondaparinux could provide similar efficacy and safety in postoperative thromboprophylaxis following MIE compared with nadroparin.

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.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy in the lateral-prone position: Experience of 124 cases in a single center

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy was first introduced as a new technique for esophageal cancer treatment 20 years ago. Performing this procedure in the lateral-prone position is the most appropriate method. Since May 2013, our center has performed 124 esophageal cancer operations using this procedure. Herein, we share our experience.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 124 consecutive patients who had received minimally invasive esophagectomy in the lateral-prone position from May 2013 to June 2017. The procedure, operative variables, postoperative complications, and oncology outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

The surgery was successful in all 124 patients; three cases converted to an abdominal opening procedure during surgery. The mean total lymph node harvest was 19.2: 12.9 in the thoracic cavity and 6.0 in the abdominal cavity. The average total operation duration was 376 minutes and blood loss was 156 mL. No mortality occurred within 30 postoperative days. Forty-three cases of postoperative morbidity occurred in 38 patients (30.6%), including 11 anastomotic leakages (8.9%), 1 chyle leak (0.8%), 12 lateral recurrent nerve palsies (9.7%), 11 pulmonary complications (8.9%), and 8 other complications (6.5%). A learning curve indicated that blood loss, operation duration, and the number of lymph nodes harvested would improve with time.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical and oncological outcomes following minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer were acceptable. There are some advantages to this technique compared to previous reports of opening procedures.

Comparison of perioperative outcomes following hybrid minimally invasive versus open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of various minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) procedures for esophageal cancer have been reported; however, those of the hybrid approach are lacking. This study aimed to assess the impacts of hybrid minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (HIL, laparoscopy and right thoracotomy) for esophageal cancer on perioperative outcomes compared with the open approach.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 153 patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for squamous cell carcinoma between January 2008 and December 2016. Patients who received neoadjuvant treatment prior to surgery (n=22) and underwent complete minimally invasive procedures (n=16) were excluded. Clinical characteristics and perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent HIL (n=53) were compared with findings in patients who underwent open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (OIL, n=62).

RESULTS

There were 112 men (97.4%) and 3 women (2.6%) with a median age of 66 years (range, 45-83 years). The HIL and OIL groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, preoperative pulmonary function, location of the tumor, and preoperative laboratory findings. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding surgical data, except for pyloric management. Postoperative complications occurred in 17 (32.1%) and 23 (37.1%) patients in the HIL and OIL groups, respectively (P=0.573); in-hospital mortality rates were 3.8% and 8.1%, respectively (P=0.337). HIL group patients had higher albumin (3.3 vs. 2.9 g/dL; P<0.001) and lower C-reactive protein (6.4 vs. 8.1 mg/L; P<0.001) postoperatively. The length of hospital stay was shorter in the HIL group (13.5 vs. 19.2 days; P=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the conventional open approach, HIL for esophageal cancer showed better postoperative nutritional and inflammatory status, resulting in shorter hospital stays. However, further studies are required to evaluate the long-term oncologic outcomes of this hybrid approach.

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.

Supracarinal dissection of the oesophagus and lymphadenectomy by MIE

Since 1995, video-assisted thoracoscopic oesophagectomy (VATS), according the same surgical principles as the Japanese open surgery, has been completed in 700 patients with oesophageal cancer. Our indication for VATS is (I) no extensive pleural adhesion; (II) no contiguous tumor spread; (III) pulmonary function capable of sustaining single-lung ventilation, and (IV) non radiated patients. We use 4 ports around a 5 cm mini-thoracotomy on 5th intercostal space. We laid emphasis on utilizing magnifying effect of video (5 to 20 magnifications), obtained by positioning the camera at close vicinity to the dissection. Magnified view facilitates recognizing the fine layer structure of the mediastinum. The dissection should be performed following this layer structure just like open the page of a book. Tearing the layer makes the dissection irrational and cause unnecessary bleeding and invasiveness. The microanatomies we recognize during upper mediastinal dissection are (I) the most outer layer below the mediastinal pleura are branches from the vagus nerve and thoracic sympathetic trunk; (II) there is no vessel flow in the nerves or out, in the field of dissection; (III) the ideal layer of dissection along the nerve is exposing the epineurium; (IV) the strongest fixing structures in the mediastinum are the vagal nerves and nerves form thoracic sympathetic trunk; (V) the stump of thoracic duct shows particular appearance because of the intramural smooth muscle; (VI) the lymphonodes in the mediastinum are fixed strongly with nerves and gently with vessels; (VII) the aorta is covered with fine fibrous membrane consisting of branches form thoracic sympathetic trunk, etc. Magnified view shows the microstructure of the lymph node such as the afferent lymphatics penetrating the capsule and the hilum structure consisting the efferent lymphatics, artery, vein and nerve. The direction of the hilum of nodes is defined in each region. Therefore, understanding the hilum direction facilitates rational dissection. The hospital mortality was four patients (0.6%). The rate of regional control was 95%. The 5-year survival rates of the patients with pStage 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 were 92%, 88%, 69%, 52% and 24%, respectively, which were favorably compared with open surgery.

Hybrid and total minimally invasive esophagectomy: how I do it

Esophagectomy is a major surgical procedure associated with a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive esophagectomy is becoming the preferred approach because of the potential to limit surgical trauma, reduce respiratory complications, and promote earlier functional recovery. Various hybrid and total minimally invasive surgical techniques have been introduced in clinical practice over the past 20 years, and minimally invasive esophagectomy has been shown equivalent to open surgery concerning the short-term outcomes. Implementation of a minimally invasive esophagectomy program is technically demanding and requires a significant learning curve and the infrastructure of a dedicated multidisciplinary center where optimal staging, individualized therapy, and perioperative care can be provided to the patient. Both hybrid and total minimally invasive techniques of esophagectomy have proven safe and effective in expert centers. The choice of the surgical approach should be driven by preoperative staging, tumor site and histology, comorbidity, patient's anatomy and physiological status, and surgeon's experience.

Morbidity analysis in minimally invasive esophagectomy for oesophageal cancer versus conventional over the last 10 years, a single institution experience

BACKGROUND

There has been an increasing inclination towards minimally invasive esophagectomies (MIEs) at our institute recently for resectable oesophageal cancer.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the present study is to report peri-operative and long-term procedure specific outcomes of the two groups and analyse their changing pattern at our institute.

METHODS

All adult patients with a diagnosis of oesophageal cancer managed at our institute from 2005 to 2015 were included in this retrospective study. Patients' demographic and clinical characteristics were recorded through our hospital information system. The cohort of esophagectomies was allocated into two groups, conventional open esophagectomy (OE) or total laparoscopic MIE; hybrid esophagectomies were taken as a separate group. The short-term outcome measures are an operative time in minutes, length of hospital and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay in days, post-operative complications and 30 days in-hospital mortality. Complications are graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Long-term outcomes are long-term procedure related complications over a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Trends were analysed by visually inspecting the graphic plots for mean number of events in each group each year.

RESULTS

Our results showed no difference in mortality, length of hospital and ICU stays and incidence of major complications between three groups on uni- and multi-variate analysis (P > 0.05). The operative time was significantly longer in MIE group (odds ratio [OR]: 1.66, confidence interval [CI]: 2.4-11.5). The incidence of long-term complication was low for MIE (OR: 1.0, CI: 133-1.017). However, all post-operative surgical outcomes trended to improve in both groups over the course of this study and stayed better for MIE group except for the operative time.

CONCLUSION

MIE has overall comparable surgical outcomes to its conventional counterpart. Furthermore, the peri-operative outcomes tend to improve in our centre with the maturation of program and experience.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

Background and objectives

The safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in comparison with the open esophagectomy (OE) remain uncertain in esophageal cancer treatment. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes of the two surgical modalities.

Methods

Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov with the following index words: “esophageal cancer”, “VATS”, “MIE”, “thoracoscopic esophagectomy”, and “open esophagectomy” for relative studies that compared the effects between MIE and OE. Random-effect models were used, and heterogeneity was assessed.

Results

A total of 20 studies were included in the analysis, consisting of four randomized controlled trials and 16 prospective studies. MIE has reduced operative blood loss (P=0.0009) but increased operation time (P=0.009) in comparison with OE. Patients get less respiratory complications (risk ratio =0.74, 95% CI =0.58–0.94, P=0.01) and better overall survival (hazard ratio =0.54, 95% CI =0.42–0.70, P<0.00001) in the MIE group than the OE group. No statistical difference was observed between the two groups in terms of lymph node harvest, R0 resection, and other major complications.

Conclusion

MIE is a better choice for esophageal cancer because patients undergoing MIE may benefit from reduced blood loss, less respiratory complications, and also improved overall survival condition compared with OE. However, more randomized controlled trials are still needed to verify these differences.

Changes in oncological outcomes: comparison of the conventional and minimally invasive esophagectomy, a single institution experience

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is becoming the routine procedure for resectable esophageal cancer. The aim of this retrospective study is to analyze the oncologic adequacy of these two procedures at our Centre. Out of 1252 registered esophageal cancer patients at our institute from 2006 to 2015, 206 patients who underwent a surgical resection with curative intent and a complete medical record were retrospectively evaluated thru hospital medical record system (HIS). Patients were allocated into the conventional open OE, and minimally invasive MIE and Hybrid esophagectomy groups. Primary outcomes are tumor recurrence and disease-free survival over a minimum follow-up of 1 year along with assessment of adequacy of pathological specimen in terms of lymph nodes harvested and clear longitudinal <1 cm and circumferential (≥1 mm) resection margins for patients with post-neo-adjuvant residual disease. Secondary endpoint is to look for trends in the adequacy of oncologic clearance in each group over the study period. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) between groups (OE vs. MIE vs. Hybrid) for median number of lymph nodes retrieved (13 vs.14 vs.15), resection margin positive disease (55.8 vs. 35.7 vs. 44 % of patients with any residual disease N = 103,50 %), or tumor recurrence (45.2 vs. 37.3 vs. 25 %). Disease-free survival over a mean follow-up of 2.3 years was higher in the conventional group (13.8 months vs. 9.7MIE and 11.8hybrid) without any statistical significance. Learning curve for MIE to achieve a comparable mean lymph nodes harvest to OE was 1 year, while pathological complete resection stayed persistently better with minimally invasive approach. Minimally invasive esophagectomy is found to be oncologically adequate and gives results matching their conventional analogue with an increasing experience.

Transhiatal Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

Survival for esophageal cancer has improved over the past four decades, probably as a result of a combination of more accurate staging, improved surgical outcomes, advances in adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies, and the increasing implementation of multimodality treatment. Surgical resection still remains the mainstay in the treatment of localized esophageal adenocarcinoma. Multiple techniques have been described for esophagectomy, which are based on either a transthoracic or transhiatal approach. Despite proponents of each technique touting potential advantages such as superior oncologic resection with more extensive transthoracic lymphadenectomy compared to the relatively limited morbidity and mortality with a transhiatal resection, the superiority of one technique over another is not clear and may be relegated to a topic of historical significance in the era of minimally invasive surgery. With the increased acceptance of neoadjuvant multimodality therapy, both approaches have been shown to have acceptable outcomes. And in the hands of experienced surgeons, both techniques can provide excellent short-term results. Moreover, surgeon and hospital volume have shown to be strongly associated with improved operative morbidity and oncologic outcomes, which may supersede the type of approach selected for an individual patient.

Robot-Assisted Mckeown Esophagectomy is Feasible After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation. Our Initial Experience

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation has become the standard of care for esophageal cancer, especially for middle third esophageal lesions and those with squamous histology. Although more and more thoracic surgeons and surgical oncologists have now shifted to video-assisted and robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy; there is still limited experience for the use of minimal-assisted approaches in patients undergoing surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Most surgeons have concerns of feasibility, safety, and oncological outcomes as well as issues related to difficult learning curve in adopting robotic esophagectomy in patients after chemoradiation. We present our initial experience of Robot-Assisted Mckeown Esophagectomy in 27 patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiation, from May 2013 to October 2014. All patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation to a dose of 50.4 Gy/25Fr with concurrent weekly cisplatin, followed by reassessment with clinical examination and repeat FDG PET/CT 6 weeks after completion of chemoradiation. Patients with progressive disease underwent palliative chemotherapy while patients with either partial or significant response to chemoradiation underwent Robot-Assisted Mckeown Esophagectomy with esophageal replacement by gastric conduit and esophagogastric anastomosis in the left neck. Out of 27 patients, 92.5 % patients had stage cT3/T4 tumours and node-positive disease in 48.1 % on imaging. Most patients were middle thoracic esophageal cancers (23/27), with squamous histology in all except for one. All patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation and subsequently underwent Robot Assisted Mckeown Esophagectomy. The average time for robot docking, thoracic mobilization and total surgical procedure was 13.2, 108.4 and 342.7 min, respectively. The procedure was well tolerated by all patients with only one case of peri-operative mortality. Average ICU stay was 6.35 days (range 3-9 days). R0 resection rate of 96.3 % and average lymph node yield of 18 could be achieved. Pathological node negativity rate (pN0) and complete response (pCR) were 66.6 and 44.4 %, respectively. In the initial cases, four patients had to be converted to open due technical reasons or intraoperative complications. The present study, with shorter operative times, similar ICU stay, overall low morbidity, and mortality and optimal oncological outcomes suggest that robot-assisted thoracic mobilization of esophagus in patients with prior chemoradiation is feasible and safe with acceptable oncological outcomes. It has a shorter learning curve and hence allows for a transthoracic minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy to more and more patients, otherwise unfit for conventional approach.

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.