Applicability and feasibility of incorporating minimally invasive esophagectomy at a high volume center

Comparative Perioperative Outcomes by Esophagectomy Surgical Technique

INTRODUCTION

Surgical resection is vital in the curative management of patients with esophageal cancer. However, a myriad of surgical procedures exists based on surgeon preference and training. We report on the perioperative outcomes based on esophagectomy surgical technique.

METHODS

A prospectively managed esophagectomy database was queried for patients undergoing esophagectomy from 1996 and 2016. Basic demographics, tumor characteristics, operative details, and post-operative outcomes were recorded and analyzed by comparison of transhiatal vs Ivor-lewis and minimally invasive (MIE) vs open procedures.

RESULTS

We identified 856 patients who underwent esophagectomy. Neoadjuvant therapy was administered in 543 patients (63.4%). There were 504 (58.8%) open esophagectomies and 302 (35.2%) MIE. There were 13 (1.5%) mortalities and this did not differ among techniques (p = 0.6). While there was no difference in overall complications between MIE and open, complications occurred less frequently in patients undergoing RAIL and MIE IVL compared to other techniques (p = 0.003). Pulmonary complications also occurred less frequently in RAIL and MIE IVL (p < 0.001). Anastomotic leaks were less common in patients who underwent IVL compared to trans-hiatal approaches (p = 0.03). MIE patients were more likely to receive neoadjuvant therapy (p = 0.001), have lower blood loss (p < 0.001), have longer operations (p < 0.001), and higher lymph node harvests (p < 0.001) compared to open patients.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive and robotic Ivor Lewis techniques demonstrated substantial benefits in post-operative complications. Oncologic outcomes similarly favor MIE IVL and RAIL.

[Influence of the type of thoracic access on postesophagectomy respiratory complications]

INTRODUCTION

A systematic review of the literature was performed with the aim to determine differences in the rate of respiratory complications after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer using minimally invasive access vs traditional thoracic access.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using Medline and Cochrane Library, identifying studies that compared the 2 types of thoracic access, regardless of the type of abdominal access (laparotomy/laparoscopy). The studies selected described respiratory complications in absolute numbers and different categories. Studies that considered minithoracotomy as a minimally invasive technique were excluded. Inclusion criteria were: studies decribing the different types of respiratory complications (9 in total), and analysing the most common complications: respiratory infection, respiratory failure and pleural effusion.

RESULTS

Nine studies were selected (one prospective randomized trial and 8 case control studies) including 1,190 patients, 1,167 of which were operated on for esophageal cancer: 482 patients by thoracotomy and 708 by thoracoscopy. Three studies included definitions of respiratory complications, and one stratified them. The more frequent complications that allowed a meta-analysis were: respiratory infections, pleural effusion, and respiratory failure. No significant differences were found between the 2 types of access in the global analysis.

DISCUSSION

The type of thoracic access (thoracotomy or thoracoscopy) does not seem to influence the development of respiratory complications after esophagectomy for cancer. However, the design of the studies analysed, the absence of clear definitions and stratification of the complications makes this conclusion questionable. A consensus on the definition of complications and further prospective randomized clinical trials are necessary.

Laparoscopic ischemic conditioning of the stomach prior to esophagectomy

Several complications after esophagectomy with gastric pull-up are associated with ischemia within the gastric conduit. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of laparoscopic ischemic preconditioning of the stomach prior to thoracotomy, esophagectomy, and gastric pull-up with an intrathoracic anastomosis. A retrospective review of 24 consecutive patients between October 2008 and July 2011 with esophageal adenocarcinoma (stage I-III) undergoing laparoscopic gastric ischemic conditioning prior to esophagectomy was conducted. Conditioning included laparoscopic ligation of the left and short gastric arteries, celiac node dissection, and jejunostomy tube placement. Formal resection and reconstruction was then performed 4-10 days later. Of the 24 patients, 88% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy/radiation therapy. Twenty-three of the 24 patients underwent successful laparoscopic ischemic conditioning and subsequent esophagectomy. Total mean number of lymph nodes harvested was 21.8 (±8.0), and a mean of 5.3 (±2.4) celiac lymph nodes identified. There were no conversions to an open procedure. Length of stay was 3.8 (±4.8) days with a median length of stay of 2 (1-24) days. Three patients experienced anastomotic leak, six patients experience delayed gastric emptying, and two patients developed anastomotic stricture. There were no surgical site infections. R0 resection was achieved in all patients who underwent laparoscopic ischemic conditioning followed by esophagectomy. Laparoscopic ischemic conditioning of the gastric conduit has been shown to be feasible and safe.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: evolution and review

Esophageal cancer remains one of the most deadly cancers with a low overall 5-year survival rate of 17%. Surgical options for esophageal cancer are varied, and debate exists on the best option. The literature was searched for articles discussing minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) compared with open esophagectomy (OE), and articles were chosen at the discretion of the authors. Several studies have shown that MIE has a statistically significant rate of decreased blood loss, increased length of operative time, shorter hospital stay, and overall decreased morbidity. Anastomotic leak, stricture rate, and survival benefit have also been demonstrated to be similar between OE and MIE. As is made apparent by the small amount of literature on MIE, further research must be done to determine outcomes. Although it is likely that MIE does offer benefits when compared with open surgery, it has not been shown in any large-scale comparative studies.

Initial experience from a large referral center with robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy for oncologic purposes

BACKGROUND

We report our initial experience of patients undergoing robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy (RAIL) for oncologic purposes at a large-referral center.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all consecutive patients undergoing RAIL from 2010-2011 was performed. Basic demographics were recorded. Oncologic variables recorded included: tumor type, location, postoperative tumor margins, and nodal harvest. Immediate 30-day postoperative complications also were analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty patients underwent RAIL with median age of 66 (range 42-82) years. The mean body mass index was 28.6 ± 0.7 kg/m(2); 54% and the majority had an American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of 3. The mean and median number of lymph nodes retrieved during surgery was 20 ± 1.4 and 18.5 respectively. R0 resections were achieved in all patients. Postoperative complications occurred in 14 (28%) patients, including atrial fibrillation in 5 (10%), pneumonia in 5 (10%), anastomotic leak in 1 (2%), conduit staple line leak in 1 (2%), and chyle leak in 2 (4%). The median ICU stay and length of hospitalization (LOH) were 2 and 9 days respectively. Total mean operating time calculated from time of skin incision to wound closure was 445 ± 85 minutes; however, operative times decreased over time. Similarly, there was a trend toward lower complications after the first 29 cases but this did not reach statistical significance. There were no in-hospital mortalities.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that RAIL for esophageal cancer can be performed safely and may be associated with fewer complications after a learning curve, shorter ICU stay, and LOH.

A preliminary experience with minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy

With several small series examining minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomies, we look to contribute to a growing experience. In reporting our initial results, safety, initial oncologic completeness, and preliminary outcomes with a minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy were demonstrated. From 2007 to 2010, 40 minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomies were carried out. The approach was a laparoscopic mobilization of the stomach and a thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization and creation of a high intrathoracic anastomosis. Indications included esophageal cancer in 39 patients and esophageal gastrointestinal stromal tumor in one patient. Median age was 62 (range 39-77) with 31 (78%) male patients. Non-emergent conversion was required in two (5%) patients. Twenty-five (63%) patients underwent neoadjuvant therapy. Mean operative time was 364 minutes (range 285-455), and mean blood loss was 205 cc (range 100-400). All patients underwent an R0 resection including the removal of all Barrett's esophagus, and mean number of nodes harvested was 21 (range 11-41). Median intensive care unit stay was 1 day (range 1-3), and hospital stay was 7 days (range 6-19). There were no anastomotic leaks and no 30-day mortality. Postoperative complications included eight (21%) patients with atrial fibrillation and two (5%) chylothorax, one requiring ligation. At a mean follow-up of 16.5 months (range 1-39 months), five (13%) patients have had a distant recurrence; there have been no local recurrences. Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, although technically challenging, can be carried out with reasonable operative times, a short length of stay, and minimal complication. Final oncologic validity is pending longer follow-up and a larger series.

Incidence of diaphragmatic hernias following minimally invasive versus open transthoracic Ivor Lewis McKeown esophagectomy

OBJECTIVES

To compare the incidence of post-operative hiatal herniation after open and minimally invasive Ivor Lewis McKeown esophagectomy for malignant disease.

METHODS

All patients undergoing esophageal resection were entered into a prospectively maintained database. After Institutional Review Board approval, the database was queried to identify patients who underwent minimally invasive (MIE) and open transthoracic (TTE) Ivor Lewis McKeown esophagectomy (transthoracic three-hole) with gastric pull-up for malignant disease. The cohorts were compared for the incidence of hiatal hernia on routine CT scan for cancer surveillance. Data up to 24 months post-operatively was included. Patients undergoing trans-hiatal or hybrid procedures as well as intra-thoracic anastomosis were excluded as were patients in whom jejunum or colon was used for reconstruction.

RESULTS

Between 2003 and 2009, 19 MIEs and 20 open TTEs met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in age, co-morbidity, pathology or perioperative morbidity and mortality between the two groups. During routine follow-up, para-gastric hiatal hernia was noted on CT scan in 5(26%) patients following MIE at a mean of 13.8 months postoperatively, with incidence ranging from 3 to 20 months postoperatively (19, 20, 18, 3, and 9 months, respectively). Hernia contents in these patients were omentum in one case and colon in the other four cases. None of the patients undergoing TTE were noted to have herniation (P = 0.01). All hernias were asymptomatic; three were repaired electively.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significantly higher incidence of para-gastric hiatal hernia after Ivor Lewis McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy compared to similar open procedures. Additional precautions to prevent para-gastric hernia should be taken during laparoscopic resection.

Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy after Induction Therapy Yields Similar Early Outcomes to Surgery Alone

Objective

Although considered an integral part of treatment for regionally advanced esophageal cancer, there is conflicting literature regarding the effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on esophagectomy. The objectives of this study are to examine the effect of neoadjuvant therapy in regard to perioperative parameters, morbidity, and short-term mortality in patients undergoing a minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIE).

Methods

This is a retrospective review of 39 patients undergoing MIE for esophageal cancer during 2007–2010.

Results

Of the 39 patients, 14 (36%) did not receive neoadjuvant therapy (NCR) and 25 (64%) did receive either chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy (CR). On comparing NCR vs CR, there was no difference in operative time (361 vs 362 minutes; P = 0.94) or estimated blood loss (233 vs 190 mL; P = 0.06). All patients underwent an R0 resection, and there was no difference in the mean number of lymph nodes harvested (NCR 21.5 vs CR 21.6; P = 0.95). Both groups had mean intensive care unit stay of 1 day (P = 0.7), and there was no difference in length of stay (NCR 7.4 vs CR 8.2 days; P = 0.38). There were no deaths or anastomotic leaks in either group. The incidence of complications in the NCR group was 21% (3/14) while in the CR group was 48% (12/25). Complications were not associated with neoadjuvant therapy [CR vs NCR: odds ratio = 3.44 (0.72–16.38); P = 0.121], even after adjusting for comorbidities and age.

Conclusions

MIE can be performed safely following neoadjuvant therapy with similar perioperative results, morbidity, and short-term mortality when compared with MIE alone. Longer follow-up is required for oncologic validity.