Laparoscopic Transhiatal Esophagectomy for Invasive Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

A comparative assessment of ACS NSQIP-predicted and actual surgical risk outcomes of robotic transhiatal esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma resection at a high volume institution

Esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence is increasing in Western nations. There has been a shift toward minimally invasive approaches for transhiatal esophagectomy (THE). This study compares the outcomes of robotic THE for esophageal adenocarcinoma resection at our institution with the predicted metrics from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP). With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we prospectively followed 83 patients who underwent robotic THE from 2012 to 2023. Predicted outcomes were determined using the ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator. Our outcomes were compared with these predicted outcomes and with general outcomes for transhiatal esophagectomy reported in ACS NSQIP, which includes a mix of surgical approaches. The median age of patients was 70 years, with a body mass index (BMI) of 26.4 kg/m2 and a male prevalence of 82%. The median length of stay was 7 days. The rates of any complications and in-hospital mortality were 16% and 5%, respectively. Seven patients (8%) were readmitted within a 30-day postoperative window. The median survival is anticipated to surpass 95 months. Our outcomes were generally aligned with or surpassed the predicted ACS NSQIP metrics. The extended median survival of over 95 months highlights the potential effectiveness of robotic THE in the resection of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Further exploration into its long-term survival benefits and outcomes is warranted, along with studies that provide a more direct comparison between robotic and other surgical approaches.

Cost comparison between medicare and private insurance for robotic transhiatal esophagectomy

Esophageal cancer is a significant health concern, with the robotic platform being increasingly adopted for transhiatal esophagectomy (THE). While literature exists regarding the cost of robotic THE and its benefits, there is limited data analyzing cost and concurrent hospital reimbursement based on payor or provider. This study aimed to compare hospital reimbursement after robotic THE for patients with Medicare versus private insurance. With IRB approval, a prospective study of 85 patients from 2012 to 2022 who underwent robotic THE was conducted. Private insurance was defined as coverage excluding Medicare, Medicaid, or self-pay. Statistical analyses involved Student's t test, Chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test, with p ≤ 0.05 considered statistically significant. Data are presented as median (mean ± standard deviation). Among the 85 patients, 64 had Medicare, and 21 had private insurance. Medicare patients exhibited more frequent history of prior abdominal or thoracic surgeries (41% vs 10%, p < 0.01). Both groups showed no differences in factors like sex, body mass index, ASA classification, operative duration, estimated blood loss, conversions to 'open', tumor size, and major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III). Similarly, metrics such as hospital stay duration, in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmission, and various financial components including total and variable costs, hospital reimbursement, and net margin were consistent across both. Despite Medicare patients being older and often having a broader operative history, hospital costs and reimbursements did not differ from patients with private insurance post-robotic THE. The robotic platform appears to mitigate potential disparities in hospitalization costs and hospital reimbursement for THE between Medicare and private insurance.

Reducing Conduit Ischemia and Anastomotic Leaks in Transhiatal Esophagectomy: Six Principles

BACKGROUND

Transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) is an accepted approach for distal esophageal (DE) and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers. Its reported weaknesses are limited loco-regional resection and high anastomotic leak rates. We have used laparoscopic assistance to perform a THE (LapTHE) as our preferred method of resection for GEJ and DE cancers for over 20 years. Our unique approach and experience may provide technical insights and perhaps superior outcomes.

METHODS

We reviewed all patients who underwent LapTHE for DE and GEJ malignancy over 10 years (2011-2020). We included 6 principles in our approach: (1) minimize dissection trauma using laparoscopy; (2) routine Kocher maneuver; (3) division of lesser sac adhesions exposing the entire gastroepiploic arcade; (4) gaining excess conduit mobility, allowing resection of proximal stomach, and performing the anastomosis with a well perfused stomach; (5) stapled side-to-side anastomosis; and (6) routine feeding jejunostomy and early oral diet.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-seven patients were included in the analysis. The median number of lymph nodes procured was 19 (range 5-49). Negative margins were achieved in all cases (95% confidence interval [CI] 98-100%). Median hospital stay was 7 days. Overall major complication rate was 24% (17-32%), 90-day mortality was 2.0% (0.4-5.8%), and reoperation was 5.4% (2.4-10%). Three patients (2.0%, 0.4-5.8%) developed anastomotic leaks. Median follow-up was 901 days (range 52-5240). Nine patients (6.1%, 2.8-11%) developed anastomotic strictures.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine use of LapTHE for DE and GEJ cancers and inclusion of these six operative principles allow for a low rate of anastomotic complications relative to national benchmarks.

Laparoscopic-assisted transhiatal oesophagectomy: An experience from a tertiary care centre over 10 years

Background

Minimally invasive surgeries have become the standard of care in oesophageal surgeries, but the transhiatal approach is still not widely in practice. As in the open surgical approach, laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy has been accepted by many centres worldwide. The laparoscopic-assisted transhiatal oesophagectomy (LATE) has become a time-tested surgery. Many centres across the world have shown its feasibility and superiority regarding the lymph node yield with less morbidity with the added advantage of laparoscopy. We are pleased to share our 10-year experience with LATE and the long-term follow-up.

Materials and Methods

Retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained data from our tertiary care centre from January 2010 to January 2021. Forty-six out of 74 patients with carcinoma of the lower end of the oesophagus who underwent LATE were analysed retrospectively.

Results

Our study group included 46 patients. Six patients who required conversion to open surgery and those who underwent different procedures were excluded. The mean operative time was 220 (140-360) min. The mean blood loss was 230 (100-500) ml. Four (8.69%) patients had neck leaks. Twelve (26.08%) patients had minor pulmonary complications and one (2.17%) patient had a major pulmonary complication in the form of acute respiratory distress syndrome. The median hospital stay was 10.5 (8-28) days and 90-day mortality was 2.17%. 45 (97.82%) patients had an R0 resection rate with a median lymph node yield of 21 (16-28). The median overall survival was 44 months, with a 3 years disease-free survival rate of 63.04% and a 5-year overall survival rate of 36.50%.

Conclusion

LATE is feasible and safe for adenocarcinoma of lower third esophagus and GEJ (gastroesophageal junction). The laparoscopic magnified view of lower mediastinum provides a better vision for lymphadenectomy especially in the neoadjuvant group. It has all the added benefits of minimal invasive surgery with acceptable short and long term oncological results.

Thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer with a cervical incision to extract specimen

BACKGROUND

Surgical treatment is the most important and effective therapy for resectable esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) can reduce surgical trauma. A neck incision can be performed for extraction of surgical specimen. This study was performed to investigate the safety and feasibility of neck incision to extract surgical specimen in thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-four patients who experienced thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer and a neck incision for extraction of surgical specimen were enrolled. The clinical, surgical and follow-up data were analyzed.

RESULTS

The procedure was successful in all patients (100%), with a neck incision to extract the surgical specimen. The median surgical time was 309 min, and the median blood loss was 186 ml, with the mean length of hospital stay of 11.5 days. Pulmonary complications occurred in 8 patients (23.5%). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 5 patients (14.7%), with one patient being treated conservatively to recover and four (11.8%) who received interventional drainage. One patient with interventional drainage died of severe infection, resulting in a 30-day surgical mortality of 2.9% (n = 1). Gastrointestinal complications happened in 5 patients (14.7%), including ileus in three patients and anastomotic stenosis in two patients. Follow-up was performed at a median time of 20 months (interquartile range, 14-32 months), with no death during this period. No recurrence was found in the first 12 months after radical resection.

CONCLUSION

The cervical incision to extract surgical specimen is safe and feasible with improved cosmetic effect in thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Modeling the impact of delaying surgery for early esophageal cancer in the era of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Surgical society guidelines have recommended changing the treatment strategy for early esophageal cancer during the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Delaying resection can allow for interim disease progression, but the impact of this delay on mortality is unknown. The COVID-19 infection rate at which immediate operative risk exceeds benefit is unknown. We sought to model immediate versus delayed surgical resection in a T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A decision analysis model was developed, and sensitivity analyses performed. The base case was a 65-year-old male smoker presenting with cT1b esophageal adenocarcinoma scheduled for esophagectomy during the COVID-19 pandemic. We compared immediate surgical resection to delayed resection after 3 months. The likelihood of key outcomes was derived from the literature where available. The outcome was 5-year overall survival.

RESULTS

Proceeding with immediate esophagectomy for the base case scenario resulted in slightly improved 5-year overall survival when compared to delaying surgery by 3 months (5-year overall survival 0.74 for immediate and 0.73 for delayed resection). In sensitivity analyses, a delayed approach became preferred when the probability of perioperative COVID-19 infection increased above 7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate resection of early esophageal cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic did not decrease 5-year survival when compared to resection after 3 months for the base case scenario. However, as the risk of perioperative COVID-19 infection increases above 7%, a delayed approach has improved 5-year survival. This balance should be frequently re-examined by surgeons as infection risk changes in each hospital and community throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) after minimally invasive and open esophagectomy

Esophagectomy for esophageal malignancies remains an operation with significant potential morbidity and mortality. However, surgical outcomes continue to improve over time and focus has shifted toward not just good outcomes, but quality of life post operatively. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) focus of quality of life measures via validated patient surveys has increasingly become a significant focus. While PROs do have their limitations, they represent a glimpse into the symptomatology, quality of life, and well-being of a patient undergoing a procedure with inherent morbidity. Working to improve outcomes from the perspective of the patient is not a new concept, but has becoming increasingly relevant as surgical quality for all procedures improves. The optimal approach to esophagectomy is controversial. Minimally invasive approaches attempt to avoid laparotomy and thoracotomy with the thought of improving post-operative quality of life by mitigating complications related to those open surgical approaches. The data in favor of laparoscopy and thoracoscopy is quite strong and multiple randomized controlled trials exist in this realm supporting minimally invasive approaches with regards to quality of life outcomes and more rapid return to patient's preoperative baseline. The data in favor of a robotic approach for esophagectomy is not quite as robust, but more studies show that these approaches mirror the benefits of the laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approaches without robotic assistance.