The Contemporary Role of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in Esophageal Cancer

Robot-Assisted-Minimally Invasive-Transhiatal Esophagectomy (RAMI-THE)

The authors review the development and steps of the robotic-assisted minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy. Key goals of the robot-assisted approach have been to address some of the concerns raised about the technical challenges with the traditional open transhiatal esophagectomy while keeping most of the steps consistent with the open approach.

Robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy

Background

Esophagectomy is the gold standard treatment for resectable esophageal cancer; however, there is insufficient evidence to indicate potential advantages over standard minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in treating thoracic esophageal cancer. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) bridges the gap between open and minimally invasive surgery. In this single-center retrospective review, we compare the clinical outcomes of EC patients treated with MIE and RAMIE.

Method

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent surgery at Qilu Hospital between August 2020 and August 2022, including 159 patients who underwent MIE and 35 patients who received RAMIE. The intraoperative, postoperative, and preoperative patient characteristics in both groups were evaluated.

Results

Except for height, the MIE and RAMIE groups showed no significant differences in preoperative features (P>0.05). Further, there were no significant differences in intraoperative indices, including TNM stage of the resected tumor, tumor tissue type, or ASA score, between the two groups. However, statistically significant differences were found in some factors; the RAMIE group had a shorter operative time, less intraoperative bleeding, and more lymph nodes removed compared to the MIE group. Patients in the RAMIE group reported less discomfort and greater chest drainage on the first postoperative day than patients in the MIE group; however, there were no differences in other features between the two datasets.

Conclusion

By comparing the clinical characteristics and outcomes of RAMIE with MIE, this study verified the feasibility and safety of RAMIE for esophageal cancer. Overall, RAMIE resulted in more complete lymph node clearance, shorter operating time, reduced surgical hemorrhage, reduced postoperative discomfort, and chest drainage alleviation in patients. To investigate the function of RAMIE in esophageal cancer, we propose undertaking a future clinical trial with long-term follow-up to analyze tumor clearance, recurrence, and survival after RAMIE.

The influence of minimally invasive esophagectomy on wound infection in patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery: A meta-analysis

The impacts of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in comparison with open esophagectomy (OE) on postoperative complications, wound infections and hospital length of stay in patients with esophageal carcinoma (ESCA) using meta-analysis to provide reliable evidence for clinical practice. A search strategy was developed and computer searches were performed on Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, China Biomedical Literature Database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases for clinical studies that reported the effects of MIE in comparison with OE in patients with ESCA. The retrieval time was from their inception to October 2023. Two authors independently performed literature screening, and data extraction and literature quality evaluation were performed separately for the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 17.0 software. Overall, 26 studies with 2427 ESCA patients were included in this study, of which 1203 were in the MIE group and 1224 were in the OE group. The results showed that, compared with OE, ESCA patients who underwent MIE were less likely to develop postoperative wound infections (odds ratio [OR] = 0.31, 95% confidence intervals [CIs]: 0.20-0.49, p < 0.001) and complications (OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.18-0.30, p < 0.001) and have a shorter hospital stay (standardized mean difference = -1.93, 95% CI: -2.38 to -1.48, p < 0.001). MIE has advantages over OE in terms of shorter hospital stay and reduced incidence of postoperative wound infections and complications.

T-shaped linear-stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis for minimally invasive esophagectomy: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has become a good option in the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer. Cervical esophagogastric anastomoses (CEGA) are widely used during esophagectomy. However, CEGA are related with a higher incidence of anastomotic complications. In the present study, a new procedure of T-shaped linear-stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis was used during MIE and the short-term outcomes are presented.

METHODS

From May 2014 to December 2018, 32 consecutive patients with esophageal cancer who underwent total MIE followed by T-shaped linear-stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis were included. Postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifteen men and 17 women were included this pilot study. The histology of all cases was squamous cell carcinoma. Mean operation time of T-shaped linear-stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis was 17.6 minutes. There were no early or late mortalities. A minor cervical anastomotic leakage occurred in 1 patient. No complications of anastomotic stenosis occurred in this study.

CONCLUSION

The T-shaped linear-stapled cervical esophagogastric anastomosis is efficient, reliable, easy to perform, and associated with lower postoperative complication rate.

Oncologic Resection in Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Transhiatal Esophagectomy

Background and Objectives:

As the use of robotic surgery continues to increase, little is known about robotic oncologic outcomes compared with traditional methods in esophagectomy. The aim of this study was to examine the perioperative oncologic outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic versus robot-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy (THE).

Methods:

Thirty-six consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic and robot-assisted THE for malignant disease over a 3-year period were identified in a retrospective database. Eighteen patients underwent robotic-assisted THE with cervical anastomosis, and 18 patients underwent laparoscopic THE. All procedures were performed by a single foregut and thoracic surgeon.

Results:

Patient demographics were similar between the 2 groups with no significant differences. Lymph node yields for both laparoscopic and robot-assisted THE were similar at 13.9 and 14.3, respectively (P = .90). Ninety-four percent of each group underwent R0 margins, but only 1 patient from each modality had microscopic positive margins. All of the robot-assisted patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation, whereas 83.3% underwent neoadjuvant therapy in the laparoscopy group (P = .23). Clinical and pathologic stagings were similar in each group. There was 1 death after laparoscopic surgery in a cirrhotic patient and no mortalities among the robot-assisted THE patients (P = .99). One patient from each group experienced an anastomotic leak, but neither patient required further intervention.

Conclusions:

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted THEs yield similar perioperative oncologic results including lymph node yield and margin status. In the transition from laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery should be considered oncologically noninferior compared with laparoscopy.

Totally minimally invasive two-stage esophagectomy with intrathoracic hand-sewn anastomosis: short-term clinical and oncological outcomes

Several esophageal resection techniques have been reported in literature. The objective of this study is to assess postoperative and oncological outcomes of two-stage minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in a prone position using thoracoscopic hand-sewn anastomosis. Consecutive patients who underwent two-stage MIE in 2016 performed by the senior author were included. This was compared with the preceding cohort of consecutive patients who underwent two-stage hybrid esophagectomy (HE). The primary outcome was 30-day morbidity and mortality. The secondary outcomes were operation duration, length of stay (LOS), total nodes examined (TNE), number of positive nodes (NPN), and resection margin. Overall, 15 patients underwent MIE and 11 patients underwent HE. Respiratory complications occurred in three (20.0%) patients in the MIE group and in five (45.5%) patients in the HE group (P = 0.218). Cardiac complications occurred in two (18.2%) patients, and two other patients (18.2%) experienced anastomotic leak in the HE group. Mean operative duration was 349 ± 41.6 min in MIE and 309 ± 47.8 min in HE (P = 0.040). Median LOS was 10 days (range: 7-70) in MIE and 13 days (range: 10-116) in HE (P = 0.045). Median TNE was 23 (range: 12-36) in MIE and 20 (range: 14-47) in HE (P = 0.775). Longitudinal margin was involved in one patient (9.1%) in HE and no longitudinal margin was involved in the MIE group. Circumferential resection margin was involved in seven patients (46.7%) in MIE and in four patients (36.4%) in HE (P = 0.391). Two-stage MIE using hand-sewn technique is safe and feasible without compromising surgical and oncological outcomes. A multicenter large trial is recommended to confirm these results.

Better perioperative outcomes in thoracoscopic-esophagectomy with two-lung ventilation in semi-prone position

BACKGROUND

One-lung ventilation (OLV) anesthesia intubation route is often used in patients undergoing thoracoscopic-esophagectomy in semi-prone position. Recently, the two-lung ventilation (TLV) approach becomes popular. However, limited studies have compared the two ventilation approaches in parallel. Here, we report a single-center, retrospective study of comparing TLV and OLV approach in patients undergoing thoracoscopic-esophagectomy in semi-prone position.

METHODS

From January 2013 to November 2014, 147 patients were enrolled into the current study and were given thoracoscopic-esophagectomy in semi-prone position either by OLV or TLV. Intraoperative respiratory functional data and perioperative surgical parameters of the two approaches were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 147 patients, 64 patients received OLV and 83 patients received TLV, and all of them were successfully under gone thoracoscopic procedures without conversion to open thoracotomy. There was no incidence of major intraoperative complications or perioperative death. There were no statistically different in postoperative respiratory complications, either. However, TLV approach resulted in better intraoperative respiratory function (PaCO₂, PaO₂, SaO₂), shorter preparation time for anesthesia induction, less blood loss, shorter thoracoscopic operating time and less postoperative hospital stay (P<0.05). The incidence of postoperative respiratory complications and quantity of the resected thoracic lymph node showed no difference between the two ventilation approach (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that TLV intubation approach is superior to OLV approach during the thoracoscopic-esophagectomy in semi-prone position. According to this, TLV approach is a technically feasible, convenient and safe anesthesia induction approach for esophageal cancer surgery.

Complex Esophageal Reconstruction Procedures Have Acceptable Outcomes Compared With Routine Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Complex esophageal reconstruction (CER) is defined as restoring esophageal continuity in a previously operated field, using a nongastric conduit, or after esophageal diversion. This study compares the outcomes of CER with non-CER (NCER), which uses an undisturbed stomach for reconstruction.

METHODS

This single-institution retrospective cohort study compares 75 CERs with 75 NCERs from 1995 to 2014 that were matched for cancer versus benign disease. Distributions of demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and complications were compared between CER and NCER. Odds of mortality at 30 and 90 days were calculated with logistic regression. Overall survival was illustrated with Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

Although patients were similar in age, sex, and preoperative comorbidities, more non-white patients underwent CER (p = 0.04). Most NCER patients had adenocarcinoma (44%) or Barrett's high-grade dysplasia (39%); most CER patients had other benign disease (44%) or squamous cell carcinoma (24%, p < 0.01). CER had statistically significantly higher rates of reoperation, pneumonia, infection, and gastrointestinal complications, and longer median length of stay than NCER. Odds of mortality for CER and NCER at 30 days (odds ratio [OR] 1.0, 95% CI: 0.1 to 16.3), 90 days (OR 2.6, 95% CI: 0.5 to 13.9) and overall (adjusted hazard ratio 1.56, 95% CI: 0.9 to 2.7) were not statistically significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with NCER, CER patients had higher rates of return to the operating room, more postoperative infections and gastrointestinal complications, and longer length of stay. However, 30-day, 90-day, and overall survival were similar. CER should be offered to patients with acceptable risks and anticipated long-term survival.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes of minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy using population-level data.

METHODS

Multivariable regression modeling was used to determine predictors associated with the use of minimally invasive approaches for patients in the National Cancer Data Base who underwent resection of middle and distal clinical T13N03M0 esophageal cancers from 2010 to 2012. Perioperative outcomes and 3-year survival were compared between propensity-matched groups of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) or open esophagectomy (OE). A subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of using robotic-assisted operations as part of the minimally invasive approach.

RESULTS

Among 4,266 patients included, 1,308 (30.6%) underwent MIE. It was more likely to be used in patients treated at academic (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 10.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2-33.1) or comprehensive cancer facilities (adjusted OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 2.6-21.1). Compared with propensity-matched patients who underwent OE, patients who underwent MIE had significantly more lymph nodes examined (15 versus 13; p = 0.016) and shorter hospital lengths of stay (10 days versus 11 days; p = 0.046) but similar resection margin positivity, readmission, and 30-day mortality (all p > 0.05). Survival was similar between the matched groups at 3 years for both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (p > 0.05). Compared with MIE without robotic assistance, use of a robotic approach was not associated with any significant differences in perioperative outcomes (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of minimally invasive techniques to perform esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is associated with modestly improved perioperative outcomes without compromising survival.

Failure to rescue patients from early critical complications of oesophagogastric cancer surgery

'Failure to rescue' is a significant cause of mortality in gastrointestinal surgery. Differences in mortality between high and low-volume hospitals are not associated with large difference in complication rates but to the ability of the hospital to effectively rescue patients from the complications. We reviewed the critical complications following surgery for oesophageal and gastric cancer, their prevention and reasons for failure to rescue. Strategies focussing on perioperative optimization, the timely recognition and management of complications may be essential to improving outcome in low-volume hospitals.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy in a patient with end-stage renal disease

Renal failure has been identified as a major predictor of surgical complications and esophagectomy carries high morbidity for patients. We discuss the preoperative and postoperative considerations for performing a minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for a benign long-segment stricture in a patient with end-stage renal failure.

Impact of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical treatment of esophageal cancer is associated to a high morbidity and mortality rate. The open transthoracic or transhiatal esophagectomy are considerably invasive procedures and have been associated to high rates of complications and operative mortality. In this way, minimally invasive esophageal surgery has been suggested as an alternative to the classic procedures because would produce improvement in clinical longterm postoperative outcomes.

AIM

To assess survival, mortality and morbidity results of esophagectomy due to esophageal cancer submitted to minimally invasive techniques and compare them to results published in international literature.

METHOD

An observational, prospective study. Between 2003 and 2012, 69 patients were submitted to a minimally invasive esophagectomy due to cancer. It was recorded postoperative morbidity and mortality according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. The survival rate was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method. The number of lymph nodes obtained during the lymph node dissection, as an index of the quality of the surgical technique, was analysed.

RESULTS

63.7% of patients had minor complications (type I-II Clavien Dindo), while nine (13%) required surgical re-exploration. The most common postoperative complication corresponded to leak of the cervical anastomosis seen in 44 (63.7%) patients but without clinical repercusion, only two of them required reoperation. The mortality rate was 4.34%, and reoperation was necessary in nine (13%) cases. The average survival time was 22.59 ± 25.38 months, with the probability of a 3-year survival rate estimated at 30%. The number of resected lymph nodes was 17.17 ± 9.62.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive techniques have lower morbidity and mortality rate, very satisfactory lymphnodes resection and similar long term outcomes in term of quality of life and survival compared to results observed after open surgery.

A comparative study of survival after minimally invasive and open oesophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal cancer is increasing in incidence worldwide. Minimally invasive techniques have been used to perform oesophagectomy, but concerns regarding these techniques remain. Since its description by Cuschieri in 1992, the use of minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) has increased, but still only used in a minority of resections in the UK in 2009. In particular, there has been reluctance to use minimally invasive (thoracoscopic and laparoscopic) techniques in more advanced cancers for fears regarding the adequacy of the oncological resection. In order to identify any factors that could affect survival, we undertook a retrospective analysis on all patients who underwent surgery in our department over an 8-year period.

METHODS

A retrospective data analysis was undertaken on all patients who underwent oesophagectomy in a tertiary upper gastrointestinal surgery unit, from 2005 to 2012 inclusive. Data were collected from the departmental database and case note review, with follow-up and survival data to time of data collection. The survival data were analysed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models to determine which variables affected survival. Variables examined included age, tumour position, tumour stage (T0, 1, 2 vs T3, 4), nodal stage (N0 vs N1), tumour histology, completeness of resection (R0 vs R1), use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and operative technique (thoracoscopic/laparoscopic (MIO) vs laparoscopic abdomen/open chest (Lap assisted) vs Open.

RESULTS

334 patients underwent oesophagectomy between 2005 and 2012. Male to female ratio was 3.75:1, with a mean age of 64 years (range 36-87). There were 83 open oesophagectomies, 187 laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomies and 64 minimally invasive oesophagectomies. Following univariate regression analysis the following factors were found to be correlated to survival: use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Hazard Ratio 2.889, 95 % CI 1.737-4.806), T stage 3 or 4 (3.749, 2.475-5.72), Node positive (5.225, 3.561-7.665), R1 resection (2.182, 1.425-3.341), type of operation (MIO compared to open oesophagectomy) (0.293, 0.158-0.541). There was no significant relationship between age, tumour position or tumour histology and length of survival. When these factors were entered into a multivariate model, the independently significant factors correlated to survival were found to be T stage 3 or 4 (HR 1.969, 1.248-3.105), Node positive (3.833, 2.548-5.766) and type of operation (MIO compared to open) (0.5186, 0.277-0.972).

CONCLUSION

Multiple small studies have found reduced pulmonary complication rates and duration of hospital stay when using a minimally invasive approach compared to open. Concerns in the literature over long-term outcomes, however, have led to limited utilisation of this method, especially in advanced disease. The data from this large study show significantly better survival following operations performed using minimally invasive techniques compared to open, however, we have not adjusted for some known or unknown confounding factors. International and national RCTs, however, will provide more information in due course.