Risk analysis in resection of thoracic esophageal cancer in the era of endoscopic surgery

A refined procedure for esophageal resection using a full minimally invasive approach

Objective

Newer minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy have brought substantial benefits to esophageal-cancer patients and continue to improve. We report here our experience with a streamlined procedure as part of a comprehensive perioperative-care program that provides additional advances in the continued evolution of this procedure.

Methods

All patients with primary esophageal cancer referred for resection to the Oakland Medical Center of the Kaiser-Permanente Northern California health plan who underwent this approach between January 2013 and August 2018 were included. Operative and clinical outcome variables were extracted from the electronic medical record, operating-room files, and manual chart review.

Results

142 patients underwent the new procedure and care program; 121 (85.2%) were men with mean age of 64.5 years. 127 (89.4%) were adenocarcinoma; 117 (82.4%) were clinical stage III or IVA. 115 (81.0%) required no jejunostomy. Median hospital length-of-stay was 3 days and 8 (5.6%) patients required admission to the intensive care unit. Postoperative complications occurred in 22 (15.5%) patients within 30 days of the procedure. There were no inpatient deaths; one patient (0.7%) died within 30 days following discharge and three additional deaths (2.1%) occurred through 90 days of follow-up.

Conclusions

This approach resulted in excellent clinical outcomes, including short hospital stays with limited need for the intensive care unit, few perioperative complications, and relatively few patients requiring feeding tubes on discharge. This comprehensive approach to esophagectomy is feasible and provides another clinically meaningful advance in the progress of minimally invasive esophagectomy. Further development and dissemination of this method is warranted.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13019-022-01765-2.

Operative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy versus Open Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer

Background There is a recent rise in the incidence of esophageal carcinoma in India. Surgical resection with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiation is the current treatment modality of choice. Postoperative complications, especially pulmonary complications, affect many patients who undergo open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) could reduce the pulmonary complications and reduce the postoperative stay.

Methodology We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 114 patients with esophageal cancer in the department of surgical oncology at a tertiary cancer center in South India between January 2019 and March 2020. We included patients with resectable cancer of middle or lower third of the esophagus, and gastroesophageal junction tumors (Siewert I). MIE was performed in 27 patients and 78 patients underwent open esophagectomy (OE). The primary outcome measured was postoperative complications of Clavien–Dindo grade II or higher within 30 days. Other outcomes measured include overall mortality within 30 days, intraoperative complications, operative duration and the length of hospital stay.

Results A postoperative complication rate of 18.5% was noted in the MIE group, compared with 41% in the OE group ( p = 0.034). Pulmonary complications were noted in 7.4% in the MIE group compared to 25.6% in the OE group ( p = 0.044). Postoperative mortality rates, intraoperative complications, and other nonpulmonary postoperative complications were almost similar with MIE as with open esophagectomy. Although the median operative time was more in the MIE group (260 minutes vs. 180 minutes; p < 0.0001), the median length of hospital stay was shorter in patients undergoing MIE (9 days vs. 12 days; p = 0.0001).

Conclusions We found that MIE resulted in lower incidence of postoperative complications, especially pulmonary complications. Although, MIE was associated with prolonged operative duration, it resulted in shorter hospital stay.

Major Postoperative Complications in Esophageal Cancer After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Compared With Open Esophagectomy: An Updated Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the existing literature comparing cardiopulmonary complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with open esophagectomy (OE) and conduct a meta-analysis based on the relevant studies.

METHODS

A systematic search for articles was performed in Medline, Embase, Wiley Online Library, and the Cochrane Library. The relative risks or odds ratios (ORs) were calculated by using fixed or random-effects models. The I² and X² tests were used to test for statistical heterogeneity. We performed a metaregression for the pulmonary complications with the adenocarcinoma proportion and tumor stage. Publication bias and small-study effects were assessed using Egger's test and Begg's funnel plot.

RESULTS

A total of 30,850 participants were enrolled in the 63 studies evaluated in the meta-analysis. Arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism, pulmonary complications, gastric tip necrosis, anastomotic leakage, and vocal cord palsy were chosen as outcomes. The occurrence rate of arrhythmia was significantly lower in patients receiving MIE than in patients receiving OE (OR = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.53-0.89), with heterogeneity (I² = 30.7%, P = 0.067). The incidence of pulmonary complications was significantly lower in patients receiving MIE (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.45-0.63) but heterogeneity remained (I² = 72.1%, P = 0.000). The risk of gastric tip necrosis (OR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.07-2.05) after OE was lower than that after MIE. Anastomotic leakage, pulmonary embolism, and vocal cord palsy showed no significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

MIE has advantages over OE, especially in reducing the incidence of arrhythmia and pulmonary complications. Thus, MIE can be recommended as the preferred alternative surgery method for resectable esophageal cancer.

Postoperative complications of minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been performed increasingly more frequently for the treatment of esophageal cancer, ever since it was first described in 1992. However, the incidence of postoperative complications of MIE has not yet been well-characterized, because (a) there are few reports of studies with a sufficient sample size, (b) a variety of minimally invasive surgical techniques are used, and (c) there are few reports in which an established system for classifying the severity of complications is examined. According to an analysis performed by the Esophageal Complications Consensus Group, the most common complications of MIE are pneumonia, arrhythmia, anastomotic leakage, conduit necrosis, chylothorax, and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. Therefore, we decided to focus on these complications. We selected 48 out of 1245 reports of studies (a) that included more than 50 patients each, (b) in which the esophagectomy technique used was clearly described, and (c) in which the complications were adequately described. The overall incidences of the postoperative complications of MIE for esophageal cancer were analyzed according to the MIE technique adopted, that is, McKeown MIE, Ivor Lewis MIE, robotic-assisted McKeown MIE, robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis MIE, or mediastinoscopic transmediastinal esophagectomy. Pneumonia, arrhythmia, anastomotic leakage, and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy occurred at an incidence rate of about 10% each; Ivor Lewis MIE was associated with a relatively low incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. It is important to recognize that the incidences of complications of MIE are influenced by the MIE technique adopted and the extent of lymph node dissection.

Effectiveness of Transthoracic Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Transthoracic hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) is frequently performed in patients with esophageal cancer. However, no conclusive benefit has been defined for HMIE compared with open esophagectomy (OE) or totally MIE (TMIE). The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of HMIE compared with OE and TMIE.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase (via OVID) and Cochrane databases were comprehensively searched for relevant studies up to January 2019. Studies comparing the efficacy of transthoracic HMIE with OE or TMIE were included in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine relevant studies comprising 3994 patients were identified and included in the analysis of HMIE vs OE. HMIE decreased the incidence of postoperative total morbidity (OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.80, p = 0.00), pneumonia (OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.66, p = 0.00), in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.83, p = 0.01), duration of hospitalization (SMD=-1.03, 95% CI -1.73 to -0.33, p = 0.00) and the estimated intraoperative blood loss (SMD=-1.01, 95% CI -1.62 to -0.40, p = 0.00) compared with OE. Twenty-one relevant studies comprising 3007 patients were identified and included in the analysis of HMIE vs TMIE. HMIE increased estimated intraoperative blood loss [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 1.02, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.58, p = 0.00] and the incidence of postoperative pneumonia (OR = 1.69, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.26, p = 0.00) compared with TMIE. No statistical differences were observed for other surgical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In our opinion, HMIE is a promising surgical technique. But further RCTs are still needed to confirm the advantages and disadvantages of HMIE mentioned above.

Efficacy of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy vs open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The first line treatment regimen for esophageal cancer is still surgical resection and the choice of surgical scheme depends on surgeon. Now the efficacy comparison of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) is still controversial.

AIM

To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of HMIE and OE in patients with esophageal cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for related articles. The odds ratio (OR) or standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to evaluate the effectiveness of HMIE and OE.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies including a total of 2397 patients were selected. HMIE was significantly associated with less blood loss (SMD = -0.43, 95%CI: -0.66, -0.20; P = 0.0002) and lower incidence of pulmonary complications (OR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.57, 0.90; P = 0.004). No significant differences were seen in the lymph node yield (SMD = 0.11, 95%CI: -0.08, 0.30; P = 0.26), operation time (SMD = 0.24, 95%CI: -0.14, 0.61; P = 0.22), total complications rate (OR = 0.68, 95%CI: 0.46, 0.99; P = 0.05), cardiac complication rate (OR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.62, 1.34; P = 0.64), anastomotic leak rate (OR = 0.95, 95%CI: 0.67, 1.35; P = 0.78), duration of intensive care unit stay (SMD = -0.01, 95%CI: -0.21, 0.19; P = 0.93), duration of hospital stay (SMD = -0.13, 95%CI: -0.28, 0.01; P = 0.08), and total mortality rates (OR = 0.70, 95%CI: 0.47, 1.06; P = 0.09) between the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the OE, HMIE shows less blood loss and pulmonary complications. However, further studies are necessary to evaluate the long-term oncologic outcomes of HMIE.

Novel prognostic score of postoperative complications after transthoracic minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a retrospective cohort study of 90 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy is the standard treatment for esophageal cancer, but has a high rate of postoperative complications. Some studies reported the various scoring system to estimate the postoperative complications. However, there were according to various surgical methods and included intra- and post-operative factors. Recently, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is becoming the first-line treatment for esophageal cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the risk factors of postoperative complications and to establish a useful system for predicting postoperative complications after transthoracic MIE.

METHODS

From 2007 to 2015, 90 patients who underwent transthoracic MIE at our department were enrolled. Patients were divided into two groups according to postoperative complication: patients with major complications (n = 32) and without major complications (n = 58). Major complication was defined as ≥ IIIa in the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis identified four independent risk factors for predicting postoperative complications: age [≥ 70 years; odd ratio (OR) 6.88; p = 0.001]; sex (male; OR 5.24; p = 0.031); total protein level (< 6.7 mg/dl; OR 6.51; p = 0.002), and C-reactive protein level (≥ 0.15; OR, 6.58; p = 0.001). These four factors were used to establish a score. The complication rate for scores 0-4 were 0, 11, 36, 71, 100%, respectively. The frequency of major complications was significantly associated with the score (p < 0.001). Receiver operator characteristic curves to predict the score with regard to major complications showed an area under the curve value of 0.798 (95% confidence interval: 0.696-0.871, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our novel score may help to decide surgical intervention for esophagectomy and provide appropriate resources for perioperative management.

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 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.

Hybrid Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

The last 25 years have witnessed a steady increase in the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy for the treatment of esophageal cancer. However, it is unclear which the optimal minimally invasive approach is: totally minimally invasive or hybrid (laparoscopic assisted or thoracoscopic assisted)? The current evidence from nonrandomized control trials suggests that hybrid laparoscopic-assisted esophagectomy couples the benefits of laparoscopy and the advantages of thoracotomy, leading to reduced surgical trauma without jeopardizing survival compared with open esophagectomy. Compromised blood supply and tension on the anastomosis are two of the main factors that lead to anastomotic leakage. Recent studies have shown that a side-to-side mechanical intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis is associated with low anastomotic complications. This article discusses surgical aspects and outcomes of hybrid laparoscopic-assisted esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Compared with open esophagectomy (OE), minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) proves to have clear benefits in reducing the risk of pulmonary complications for patients with resectable esophageal cancer. The objectives of our study were to explore the superiority of MIE in reducing the occurrence of anastomotic leakages (ALs) when compared to OE.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the superiority of MIE on the occurrence of ALs over OE, by searching many sources (through December, 2014) such as Medline, Embase, Wiley Online Library, and Cochrane Library. Fixed-effects model was used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) to quantify associations between OE and MIE groups. Cochran’s Q and I² statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity among studies.

Results

Among a total of 43 studies involving 5537 patients included in the meta-analysis, 2527 (45.6 %) cases underwent MIE and 3010 (54.4 %) cases underwent OE. Compared to patients undergoing OE, patients undergoing MIE did not have statistical significance in reduced occurrence of ALs (OR = 0.97, 95 % CI = 0.80–1.17). Insignificant reduced occurrence of ALs was not associated with anastomotic location (OR = 0.90, 95 % CI = 0.71–1.13) or anastomotic procedure (OR = 1.02, 95 % CI = 0.79–1.30).

Conclusions

More proofs are needed to clarify the strengths or weaknesses of MIE in preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer. A largely randomized, controlled trial should be undertaken to resolve this contentious issue urgently.

Superiority of Minimally Invasive Oesophagectomy in Reducing In-Hospital Mortality of Patients with Resectable Oesophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Compared with open oesophagectomy (OE), minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) proves to have benefits in reducing the risk of pulmonary complications for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. However, it is unknown whether MIO has superiority in reducing the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM).

Objective

The objective of this meta-analysis was to explore the effect of MIO vs. OE on the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM).

Data Sources

Sources such as Medline (through December 31, 2014), Embase (through December 31, 2014), Wiley Online Library (through December 31, 2014), and the Cochrane Library (through December 31, 2014) were searched.

Study Selection

Data of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials related to MIO versus OE were included.

Interventions

Eligible studies were those that reported patients who underwent MIO procedure. The control group included patients undergoing conventional OE.

Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods

Fixed or random -effects models were used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) or relative risks (RRs) for quantification of associations. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated by using Cochran’s Q and I² statistics.

Results

A total of 48 studies involving 14,311 cases of resectable oesophageal cancer were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to patients undergoing OE, patients undergoing MIO had statistically reduced occurrence of IHM (OR=0.69, 95%CI =0.55 -0.86). Patients undergoing MIO also had significantly reduced incidence of pulmonary complications (PCs) (RR=0.73, 95%CI = 0.63-0.86), pulmonary embolism (PE) (OR=0.71, 95%CI= 0.51-0.99) and arrhythmia (OR=0.79, 95%CI = 0.68-0.92). Non-significant reductions were observed among the included studies in the occurrence of anastomotic leak (AL) (OR=0.93, 95%CI =0.78-1.11), or Gastric Tip Necrosis (GTN) (OR=0.89, 95%CI =0.54-1.49).

Limitation

Most of the included studies were non-randomized case-control studies, with a diversity of study designs, demographics of participants and surgical intervention.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) has superiority over open oesophagectomy (OE) in terms of the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM) and should be the first-choice surgical procedure in esophageal surgery.

Laparoscopic assisted versus open gastric pull-up following thoracoscopic esophagectomy: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy (TLE) is a type of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer which consists of thoracoscopic resection and laparoscopic reconstruction. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the technical and oncological feasibility of alimentary tract reconstruction with laparoscopically assisted gastric pull-up (LAG) following thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position (TSEP) in comparison with reconstruction with open laparotomy gastric pull-up (OLG) following TSEP, to establish TLE with extended lymph node dissection as a standard operation for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients with esophageal cancer underwent TSEP with 3-field lymphadenectomy from 2008 through 2010: for reconstruction after TSEP, 31 patients underwent LAG, and 33 patients underwent OLG. We retrospectively evaluated the technical and oncological feasibility of TLE with 3-field lymphadenectomy and compared surgical outcomes after reconstruction with OLG and that with LAG.

RESULTS

TLE with 3-field lymphadenectomy was successfully completed in 30 of 31 (97%) patients, and no surgery-related postoperative deaths occurred. No significant difference was found between LAG and OLG in the mean number of dissected abdominal lymph nodes, amount of blood loss, incidence of postoperative complications, mean postoperative hospital stay, restoration rate of respiratory function, or rate of complete resection or locoregional control, but the mean duration of abdominal procedures was significantly longer with LAG than with OLG.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the quality and safety of surgery and the oncological effectiveness of LAG for esophageal cancer. TLE consisting of LAG following TSEP with extended lymph-node dissection is a feasible surgical technique for thoracic esophageal carcinoma.

Current status and future perspectives on minimally invasive esophagectomy

Esophageal cancer has one of the highest malignant potentials of any type of tumor. The 3-field lymph node dissection is the standard procedure in Japan for surgically curable esophageal cancer in the middle or upper thoracic esophagus. Minimally invasive esophagectomy is being increasingly performed in many countries, and several studies report its feasibility and curability; further, the magnifying effect of the thoracoscope is another distinct advantage. However, few studies have reported that minimally invasive esophagectomy is more beneficial than open esophagectomy. A recent meta-analysis revealed that minimally invasive esophagectomy reduces blood loss, respiratory complications, the total morbidity rate, and hospitalization duration. A randomized study reported that the pulmonary infection rate, pain score, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization duration, and postoperative 6-week quality of life were significantly better with the minimally invasive procedure than with other procedures. In the future, sentinel lymph node mapping might play a significant role by obtaining individualized information to customize the surgical procedure for individual patients' specific needs.

Current status of minimally invasive esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer

Technical advancements and development of endoscopic equipment in thoracoscopic surgery have resulted in increase in the popularity of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). However, advantages with regard to short-term outcome and oncological feasibility of MIE have not been adequately established. 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 the outcomes are comparable to those of conventional open esophagectomy (OE). A study group recently reported the results of the first multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared MIE and OE. The incidence of pulmonary infection after surgery was markedly lower in the MIE group than in the OE group. Additional benefits of MIE included less operative blood loss, better postoperative patients' quality of life, and shorter hospital stay. However, the oncological benefit to patients undergoing MIE has not been scientifically proven because there have been no RCTs to verify the equivalency in long-term survival of patients undergoing MIE compared with that of patients undergoing OE. If future prospective studies indicate oncological benefits, MIE could truly become the standard care for patients with esophageal cancer.

Clinical evaluation of the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery in esophageal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Open thoracotomy laparotomy with extended dissection for esophageal cancer is associated with problems such as delayed postoperative recovery and decreased quality of life. In contrast, in minimally invasive surgery, these problems can be improved. In the present study, we investigated the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery in esophageal cancer.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we evaluated esophagectomy performed by the same surgeon in 98 patients with thoracic esophageal cancer. Open surgery was performed in 30 patients (open group), and minimally invasive surgery was performed in 68 patients (MIS group). We compared the invasiveness and radical cure of cancer by minimally invasive surgery with that of open surgery.

RESULTS

Comparison between the open and MIS groups showed that intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative transfused blood volume, and surgical site infection rates were significantly lower in the MIS group. The duration of postoperative endotracheal intubation and hospital stay were significantly shorter in the MIS group. The histopathologic type was squamous cell carcinoma in 93.3% in the open group and 92.6% in the MIS group. The respective 3-year survival rates were 36.7% and 71.5%, and the respective 5-year survival rates were 26.7% and 61.5%.

CONCLUSION

Based on a historical control study at a single institution, we are unable to conclude that minimally invasive surgery is superior to open surgery. However, our results indicate that minimally invasive surgery is feasible as a surgical procedure in esophageal cancer.

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open surgery: is there an advantage?

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal resection is the main method of curative treatment for cancer of the oesophagus. Despite advances in surgical technology and postoperative care, the survival rate and prognosis of people undergoing oesophagectomy is still poor. The use of minimally invasive techniques in oesophageal surgery offers hope of reduced recovery time due to a reduction in surgical trauma. Although the first reports of thoracoscopy- and laparoscopy-assisted oesophagectomy emerged some 20 years ago, there is still no consensus that the outcomes are clearly superior to outcomes following conventional open surgery. Increasingly, some surgeons promote the use of minimally invasive techniques for oesophagectomy but questions remain over its safety and efficacy compared with open surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature to compare minimally invasive techniques for oesophagectomy to open surgery. The outcomes of interest for efficacy and safety included mortality, operative complications, recurrence, and quality of life.

RESULTS

There were 28 included comparative studies. No randomised controlled studies (RCTs) were available and therefore the data need to be interpreted with caution.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations for future research are discussed. We argue that it is difficult to conduct an RCT for this procedure due to ethical considerations and suggest ways that future nonrandomised studies could be improved.

Does minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) provide for comparable oncologic outcomes to open techniques? A systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to compare minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open techniques with respect to oncologic outcomes through analysis of the extent of lymph node clearance, number of lymph nodes retrieved, oncologic stage, and 5-year mortality.

METHODOLOGY

A systematic review of the literature review was conducted using MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases (1950-2011), and evaluated all comparative studies. Comparison between the open and MIE/hybrid MIE (HMIE) groups was possible with data being available for direct comparison.

RESULTS

After careful review, 17 case-control studies with 1,586 patients having an esophagectomy were included in this systematic review. The median (range) number of lymph nodes found in the MIE, open and HMIE groups were 16 (5.7-33.90), 10 (3-32.80) and 17 (17-17.15), of which there was significance between the MIE and open groups (p=0.03) but not significant between MIE versus HMIE (p=0.25). There was no statistical significance in pathologic stage between open, MIE and HMIE groups. Generally, there were good short-term (30 day) survival rates between all three groups. The open group had 5-year survival rates between 16% and 57% compared to the MIE group 12.5%-63% (p=0.33). Overall 5-year survival was found to be not significant between open group and MIE (p=0.93). MIE does not appear on statistical evidence to present any survival advantage.

CONCLUSION

The evidence of this study suggests that MIE is equivalent to standard open esophagectomy in achieving similar oncological outcomes. Further randomised controlled trials are required to provide for a higher level of evidence.

Open or minimally invasive resection for oesophageal cancer?

Oesophagectomy is one of the most challenging surgical operations. Potential for morbidity and mortality is high. Minimally invasive techniques have been introduced in an attempt to reduce postoperative complications and recovery times. Debate continues over whether these techniques decrease morbidity and whether the quality of the oncological resection is compromised. Globally, minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) has been shown to be feasible and safe, with outcomes similar to open oesophagectomy. There are no controlled trials comparing the outcomes of MIO with open techniques, just a few comparative studies and many single institution series from which assessments of the current role of MIO have been made. The reported improvements of MIO include reduced blood loss, shortened time in high dependency care and decreased length of hospital stay. In comparative studies there is no clear reduction in respiratory complications, although larger series suggest that MIO may have a benefit. Although MIO approaches report less lymph node retrieval compared with open extended lymphadenectomy, MIO cancer outcomes are comparable. MIO will be a major component of the future oesophageal surgeons' armamentarium, but should continue to be carefully assessed. Randomized trials comparing MIO versus open resection in oesophageal cancer are urgently needed: two phase III trials are recruiting, the TIME and the MIRO trials.

Comparison of open three-field and minimally-invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

The aim was to compare the early outcomes between thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy (TLE) and open three-field esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. We retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 96 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent TLE, and 78 patients who underwent open three-field esophagectomy from March 2008 to September 2010. All the operations were successful. There was no significant difference between TLE and open three-field esophagectomy with regard to the number of lymph nodes procured (17.75±5.56 vs. 18.03±6.20, P>0.05), complications (32.3% vs. 46.2%, P>0.05), and operative mortality (2.1% vs. 3.8%, P>0.05). However, hospital stay was significantly shorter in the TLE group than the open esophagectomy group (12.64±8.82 vs. 17.53±6.40 days, P<0.01), and the TLE group had significantly less blood loss (346.68±41.13 vs. 519.26±47.74 ml, P<0.01). This showed that TLE for esophageal cancer offers results as good as or better than those with open three-field esophagectomy.

Esophagectomy without mortality: what can surgeons do?

INTRODUCTION

Surgical resection remains the mainstay treatment for patients with localized esophageal cancer. It is, however, a complex procedure. Mortality rate used to be high, but in recent years, death rate has been reduced to below 5% in specialized centers.

METHODS

Outcome of esophagectomy can be improved by paying attention to (1) appropriate patient section, (2) choice of surgical techniques and their execution, and (3) optimizing perioperative care. A volume-outcome relationship is also evident. Surgeons can perform esophagectomy without mortality, but a multi-disciplinary team management is essential to achieve this goal.

Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Open esophagectomy for cancer is a major oncological procedure, associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Recently, thoracoscopic procedures have offered a potentially advantageous alternative because of less operative trauma compared with thoracotomy. The aim of this study was to utilize meta-analysis to compare outcomes of open esophagectomy with those of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE).

METHODS

Literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases for comparative studies assessing different techniques of esophagectomy. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed. Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day mortality and anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes included operative outcomes, other postoperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes in terms of lymph nodes retrieved.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were included in the analysis. Studies included a total of 672 patients for MIE and HMIE, and 612 for open esophagectomy. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality; however, MIE had lower blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and reduced total morbidity and respiratory complications. For all other outcomes, there was no significant difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is a safe alternative to the open technique. Patients undergoing MIE may benefit from shorter hospital stay, and lower respiratory complications and total morbidity compared with open esophagectomy. Multicenter, prospective large randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these findings in order to base practice on sound clinical evidence.

The current management of esophageal cancer

The divergence in epidemiology between the East and West has made interpretation of data in the literature more difficult and has affected the choice of the most appropriate surgical technique and treatment strategies. The management of esophageal cancer certainly has evolved, and many more options are available. Stage-directed strategies and individualization of treatment are important considerations. Surgeons play a central role in directing management of this disease by advising how best to integrate surgical therapy with nonoperative programs. Surgeons should aim at improving their results further, so that the best results of surgery are compared with seemingly "safer" nonsurgical therapies. Low death rates have been achieved in specialized centers, but there still is much room for improvement in morbidity rates. Even with the best surgical resection and chemoradiation therapy, distant failure remains a barrier to improved survival rates. Therapeutic improvements will require more effective systemic drugs and a better ability to predict responders with precision. Management strategies will evolve further, with improvements in molecular techniques, imaging methods, and introduction of more novel tumoricidal agents. The challenge for the future is to test strategies critically in a scientific, unbiased manner and to explore other innovative treatments.

[Complications of surgical resection of esophageal cancer]

Esophageal resection has undergone refinements over recent years, with improved outcomes. However, in-hospital mortality remains above 10% in developed countries and is below 5% in only a select group of hospitals. Morbidity remains high even in high-volume hospitals. We reviewed risk factors in esophageal resection. Pulmonary complications occur mainly in older patients and in those with pulmonary dysfunction, especially %FEV1 or hypoxia. Liver cirrhosis, squamous cell cancer, low patient volume, and cervical anastomoses also increase complication rates. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, which may be effective in squamous cell tumors, can also increase morbidity. The main cause of morbidity and mortality are pleuropulmonary complications. Also significant are anastomotic leak and esophageal conduit necrosis. A complex procedure such as esophageal resection is better served in specialized teams.