Use of single-lumen tube for minimally invasive and hybrid esophagectomies with prone thoracoscopic dissection: case series

Two-lung ventilation or one-lung ventilation for esophagectomy: maybe the more is better from the evidence of meta-analysis

One-lung ventilation (OLV) is the most commonly used ventilation strategy during esophagectomy. However, two-lung ventilation (TLV) with artificial pneumothorax has been applied in recent years during esophagectomy. It is unclear whether TLV takes advantages over OLV for esophagectomy. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the effects of TLV and OLV for esophagectomy. We searched relevant studies from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Pubmed, and Embase in November 2020. We included studies that compared the effects of TLV with OLV in esophagectomy and provided sufficient perioperative and postoperative data. We extracted data of postoperative outcomes (postoperative pulmonary complications, anastomotic leak, hospital stay) and surgical variables (thoracic phrase time, blood loss, the number of total resected thoracic lymph nodes). We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and the weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous data. Six studies with 1725 patients were included in this meta-analysis. TLV was associated with significantly lower incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications [RR = 0.714; 95% confidence interval (CI) = (0.534, 0.956); P = 0.023], shorter hospital stay [WMD =  - 0.148; 95% CI = (- 0.246, - 0.051); P = 0.003], less blood loss [WMD =  - 0.352; 95% CI = (- 0.528, - 0.176); P < 0.001] and more resected thoracic lymph nodes [WMD = 0.207; 95% CI = (0.003, 0.4120); P = 0.047] than OLV. Moreover, TLV consumed similar time for thoracic phrase [WMD =  - 0.289; 95% CI = (- 0.661, 0.083); P = 0.128], and yielded a comparable rate of anastomotic leak [RR = 1.086; 95% CI = (0.842, 1.400); P = 0.525] compared with OLV. TLV with artificial pneumothorax resulted in less trauma than OLV. TLV with artificial pneumothorax is safe and could be a choice of ventilation strategy for esophagectomy.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis of semiprone versus prone position

Background

The preferred surgical approach for esophageal cancer is a minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy with a two-field lymph node dissection. The thoracoscopic phase may be performed either in prone- or in left lateral decubitus (LLD) position. Prone positioning has been associated with better pulmonary outcomes compared to LLD positioning; however, conversion to a classic thoracotomy is more difficult. The semiprone position has been proposed as an alternative approach.

Methods

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database (2008–2014) was performed to compare postoperative complications, surgical radicality, and lymph node yield between patients who underwent three-stage minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy in either the prone or semiprone position. Comparative analyses were conducted before and after propensity score matching.

Results

One hundred and twenty-one patients were included. In total, 82 patients underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in semiprone position and 39 patients in prone position. After propensity score matching, both groups consisted of 39 patients. The operative time in the semiprone group was longer (368 vs. 225 min, P < 0.001) and in this group the lymph node yield was significantly higher (16 (range 6–80) vs. 13 (range 3–33), P = 0.019). There were no statistically significant differences regarding radical resections, postoperative complications, and hospital stay.

Conclusion

The use of semiprone positioning in MIE is safe, feasible, and at least comparable to MIE in prone position in terms of oncological clearance and postoperative complications.

Clinical outcomes of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

Background

Minimally invasive esophagectomy theoretically offers advantages compared with open esophagectomy (OE). The aim of this study was to compare the early- and mid-term outcomes between video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) esophagectomy (VE) and OE in patients with esophageal cancer.

Methods

Between November 2011 and July 2015, a total of 172 patients were divided into two groups depending on the method of esophagectomy: the VE group (n=42) and the OE group (n=130). A propensity analysis that incorporated perioperative variables, such as age, sex, preoperative pulmonary function, Charlson comorbidity index, tumor location, histologic grade of the tumor, pathologic stage and operative procedure (Ivor Lewis or McKeown) was performed, and postoperative outcomes were compared.

Results

Matching based on propensity scores produced 42 patients in each group for the analysis. After propensity matching, there were only two operative mortalities in the OE group, and both died of postoperative pneumonia. The overall incidence of postoperative complications was 38.1% (16 of 42) and 57.1% (24 of 42) in the VE group and in the OE group, respectively (P=0.088). The incidence of pulmonary complications was lower in the VE group than in the OE group (9.5% vs. 40.5%, P=0.004). The 2-year overall survival and disease-free survival were not different between the two groups (74.4% and 69.5% in the VE group, 69.5% and 69.8% in the OE group, P=0.865 and P=0.513, respectively).

Conclusions

In select patients, superior short-term surgical results and equal oncological outcomes were achieved with VE compared with OE.