The Short-Term Outcome of Three-Field Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Siewert Type I Esophagogastric Junctional Adenocarcinoma

Risk factors for unplanned intensive care unit admission after esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study of 628 patients with esophageal cancer

Introduction

Esophagectomy patients who experience unplanned ICU admission (UIA) may experience a heavier economic burden and worse clinical outcomes than those who experience routine intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The aim of this study was to identify the risk factors for postoperative UIA in patients who underwent esophagectomy.

Methods

We retrospectively included patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy. The characteristics of postoperative UIA were described, and univariable and multivariable analyses were performed based on the logistic regression model. Furthermore, a recursive partitioning analysis was adopted to stratify the patients according to the risk of UIA.

Results

A total of 628 patients were included in our final analysis, among whom 57 (9.1%) had an UIA. The patients in the UIA cohort had a higher rate of in-hospital mortality (P<0.001), longer hospital stay (P<0.001), and higher associated costs (P<0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that hybrid/open esophagectomy (OR=4.366, 95% CI=2.142 to 8.897, P<0.001), operation time (OR=1.006, 95% CI=1.002 to 1.011, P=0.007), intraoperative blood transfusion (OR=3.118, 95% CI=1.249 to 7.784, P=0.015) and the prognostic nutrition index (PNI) (OR=0.779, 95% CI=0.724 to 0.838, P<0.001) were independently associated with UIA.

Conclusions

We identified several critical independent perioperative risk factors that may increase the risk of UIA following esophagectomy, and the above risk factors should be the focus of attention to reduce the incidence of postoperative UIA.

The fragility of significant results from randomized controlled trials in esophageal surgeries

While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are regarded as one of the highest forms of clinical research, the robustness of their P values can be difficult to ascertain. Defined as the minimum number of patients in a study arm that would need to be changed from a non-event to event for the findings to lose significance, the Fragility Index is a method for evaluating results from these trials. This study aims to calculate the Fragility Index for trials evaluating perioperative esophagectomy-related interventions to determine the strength of RCTs in this field. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for RCTs related to esophagectomy that reported a significant dichotomous outcome. Two reviewers independently screened articles and performed the data extractions with risk of bias assessment. The Fragility Index was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test. Bivariate correlation was conducted to evaluate associations between the Fragility Index and study characteristics. 41 RCTs were included, and the median sample size was 80 patients [Interquartile range (IQR) 60-161]. Of the included outcomes, 29 (71%) were primary, and 12 (29%) were secondary. The median Fragility Index was 1 (IQR 1-3), meaning that by changing one patient from a non-event to event, the results would become non-significant. Fragility Index was correlated with P value, number of events, and journal impact factor. The RCTs related to esophagectomy did not prove to be robust, as the significance of their results could be changed by altering the outcome status of a handful of patients in one study arm.

A cost-effectiveness modeling study of treatment interventions for stage I to III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Background

Esophageal cancer causes considerable costs for health systems. Appropriate treatment options for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) can reduce medical costs and provide more improved outcomes for health systems and patients. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of treatment interventions for patients with ESCC according to the Iranian health system.

Material and methods

A five-state Markov model with a 15-year time horizon was performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatment interventions based on stage for ESCC patients. Costs ($US 2021) and outcomes were calculated from the Iranian health system, with a discount rate of 3%. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the potential effects of uncertain variables on the model results.

Results

In stage I, the Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) treatment yielded the lowest total costs and highest total QALY for a total of $1473 per QALY, making it the dominant strategy compared with esophagectomy and EMR followed by ablation. In stages II and III, chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by surgery dominated esophagectomy. CRT followed by surgery was also cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $2172.8 per QALY compared to CRT.

Conclusion

From the Iranian health system’s perspective, EMR was the dominant strategy versus esophagectomy and EMR followed by ablation for ESCC patients in stage I. The CRT followed by surgery was a cost-effective intervention compared to CRT and esophagectomy in stages II and III.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12962-022-00352-5.

Does thoracoscopic esophagectomy really reduce post-operative pneumonia in all cases?

It has been said that "thoracoscopy suppresses the occurrence of pneumonia in comparison to thoracotomy", but does it reflect real clinical practice? To resolve this clinical question, we compared the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies from limited institutes (CLIs) in which a large number of high-volume centers were the main participants to those of retrospective cohort studies based on nationwide databases (CNDs) in which both high-volume centers and low-volume hospitals participated. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the short-term outcomes of thoracoscopic to open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in the three above-mentioned research formats. In total, 43 studies with 21,057 patients, which included 1 RCT with 115 patients, 38 CLIs with 6,126 patients and 4 CNDs with 14,816 patients, were selected. Pneumonia was one of the most important complications. Although significant superiority in thoracoscopic esophagectomy was observed in RCTs (p = 0.005) and CLIs (p = 0.003), no such difference was seen in findings using nationwide databases (p = 0.69). In conclusion, unlike RCTs and CLIs, CNDs did not show the superiority of thoracoscopic surgery in terms of post-operative pneumonia. RCTs and CLIs were predominantly performed by high-volume hospitals, while CNDs were often performed by low-volume hospitals. In actual clinical practice including various types of hospitals, the superiority of thoracoscopic over open esophagectomy regarding the incidence of pneumonia may, therefore, decrease.

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.

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.

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.

Laparoscopically assisted versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer-the Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open (ROMIO) study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT)

INTRODUCTION

Surgery (oesophagectomy), with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy, is the main curative treatment for patients with oesophageal cancer. Several surgical approaches can be used to remove an oesophageal tumour. The Ivor Lewis (two-phase procedure) is usually used in the UK. This can be performed as an open oesophagectomy (OO), a laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO) or a totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIO). All three are performed in the National Health Service, with LAO and OO the most common. However, there is limited evidence about which surgical approach is best for patients in terms of survival and postoperative health-related quality of life.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will undertake a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare LAO with OO in adult patients with oesophageal cancer. The primary outcome is patient-reported physical function at 3 and 6 weeks postoperatively and 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include: postoperative complications, survival, disease recurrence, other measures of quality of life, spirometry, success of patient blinding and quality assurance measures. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing LAO with OO. We will embed a randomised substudy to evaluate the safety and evolution of the TMIO procedure and a qualitative recruitment intervention to optimise patient recruitment. We will analyse the primary outcome using a multi-level regression model. Patients will be monitored for up to 3 years after their surgery.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study received ethical approval from the South-West Franchay Research Ethics Committee. We will submit the results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN10386621.

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 may contribute to long-term respiratory function after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Evidence suggests that minimally invasive esophagectomy has several advantages with regard to short-term outcomes, compared to open esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients. However, the impact of minimally invasive esophagectomy on long-term respiratory function remains unknown. The objective of this study is to assess the association between use of the minimally invasive esophagectomy and long-term respiratory dysfunction in esophageal cancer patients after esophagectomy. This retrospective single institution study using prospectively collected data included 87 consecutive esophageal cancer patients who had undergone esophagectomy. All patients underwent a respiratory function test before, and one year after esophagectomy. Logistic regression analysis was used to compute the hazard ratio for long-term respiratory dysfunction. Minimally invasive esophagectomies were performed in 53 patients, and open esophagectomies in 34 patients. The two groups showed no significant differences in terms of postoperative complications and postoperative course. Nor were any differences observed between the two groups in terms of volume capacity (L) and forced expiratory volume 1.0 (L) before esophagectomy (P > 0.34). However, one year after esophagectomy, the decreases in volume capacity and forced expiratory volume 1.0 were significantly less in the minimally invasive esophagectomy group than in the open esophagectomy group (P = 0.04 and P = 0.007, respectively). Multivariate analyses revealed that minimally invasive esophagectomy was an independent favorable factor for maintenance of forced expiratory volume 1.0 (hazard ratio = 0.17, 95% confidence interval 0.04-0.71; P = 0.01). Minimally invasive esophagectomy may be an independent favorable factor for maintenance of long-term respiratory function in esophageal cancer patients after esophagectomy.

Meta-analysis of health-related quality of life after minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes between minimally invasive and open oesophagectomy for cancer at different postoperative time points.

METHODS

A search of PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library was performed for studies that compared open with minimally invasive oesophagectomy. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted for studies that measured HRQoL scores using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OES18 questionnaires. Mean differences (MDs) greater than 10 in scores were considered clinically relevant. Pooled effects of MDs with 95 per cent confidence intervals were estimated to assess statistical significance.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in the qualitative analysis, involving 1157 patients who had minimally invasive surgery and 907 patients who underwent open surgery. Minimally invasive surgery resulted in better scores for global quality of life (MD 11·61, 95 per cent c.i. 3·84 to 19·39), physical function (MD 11·88, 3·92 to 19·84), fatigue (MD -13·18, -17·59 to -8·76) and pain (MD -15·85, -20·45 to -11·24) compared with open surgery at 3 months after surgery. At 6 and 12 months, no significant differences remained.

CONCLUSION

Patients report better global quality of life, physical function, fatigue and pain 3 months after minimally invasive surgery compared with open surgery. No such differences remain at longer follow-up of 6 and 12 months.

Evolution in the Treatment of Esophageal Disease at a Single Academic Institution: 2004-2013

INTRODUCTION

Management of benign and malignant esophageal disease has changed rapidly over the past decade. The aim of this study was to analyze evolution in surgical management of esophageal disease at a single academic medical center during this period.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent esophagectomy between 2004 and 2013. Patient, institutional, treatment, and outcomes variables were reviewed.

RESULTS

317 patients were analyzed. Median age was 63.5 years; 80% were male. Average inhospital mortality rate was 3.8%. Operative indications changed significantly from 2004 to 2013, with more operations performed for invasive malignancy (77% vs. 95%) and fewer for high-grade dysplasia (12% vs. 3%, P = .008). In 2004, Ivor Lewis esophagectomy was the most common surgical technique, but the three-field technique was the operation of choice in 2013. A minimally invasive approach was used in 19% of cases in 2004 and 100% of cases in 2013 (P < .001). Anastomotic leak ranged from 0% to 21% with no significant difference over the study period (P = .18). Median lymph node harvest increased from seven to 18 nodes from 2004 to 2013 (P = .001). Hospital length of stay decreased from 15 to 8 days (P = .001). In 2013, 79% of patients were discharged to home, compared to 73% in 2004 (P = .04).

DISCUSSION

Over the last decade, our treatment of esophageal disease has evolved from a predominantly open Ivor Lewis to a minimally invasive three-field approach. Operations for malignancy have also increased dramatically. Postoperative complications and mortality were not significantly changed, but were consistently low during the latter years of the study.

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.