Minimally invasive oesophageal resection for distal oesophageal cancer: A review of the literature

The relationship between preoperative anemia and length of hospital stay among patients undergoing radical surgery for esophageal carcinoma: a single-centre retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Although it is unclear if preoperative anemia affects patients undergoing radical resection of esophageal cancer, it does increase the length of stay (LOS) for surgical patients. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to investigate if, after adjusting for other covariates, anemia was independently associated with LOS in people undergoing radical resection of esophageal cancer.

METHODS

The retrospective cohort study included 680 patients undergoing radical esophageal cancer surgery between January 2010 and December 2020. Preoperative anemia was the targeted independent variable, while LOS was the target independent variable. Demographics, comorbidities, laboratory tests, surgery and anesthesia, postoperative outcomes, and complications were collected. Multivariate linear analyses were performed for variables that might influence preoperative anemia and LOS selection. Subgroup analysis using hierarchical variables was then used to test the potential relationship.

RESULTS

The 647 individuals that were randomly chosen had an average age of 61.06 ± 8.16 years, and 77.43% of them were male. The prevalence of anemia was 36.6%. All patients recruited had an average length of stay (LOS) of 26.31 ± 13.19 days, 25.40 ± 11.44 days for patients who had no preoperative anemia, and 27.89 ± 15.66 days for patients who had preoperative anemia, p < 0.05. After adjusting for covariates, the results of fully adjusted linear regression revealed that preoperative anemia was significantly associated with LOS (β = 2.04, 95%CI (0.13, 3.96) ), p < 0.05. The results of the subgroup analysis were basically accurate and steady. Regardless of gender, same outcomes were seen when preoperative anemia was defined as a Hb level < 13 g/dL (β = 2.29, 95%CI (0.33, 4.25) ), p < 0.05. In addition, the LOS was shortened with the increase of preoperative hemoglobin (Hb) (β= -0.81, 95%CI (-1.46, -0.1) ), p < 0.05.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative anemia is typical in Chinese patients undergoing radical esophageal cancer resection and is independently associated with prolonged LOS.

Comparison of Up-Front Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy versus Open Esophagectomy on Quality of Life for Esophageal Squamous Cell Cancer

This study investigates whether minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is a safe and effective way for patients with resectable esophageal cancer by comparing the short-term quality of life (QOL) after minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy (OE). A total number of 104 patients who underwent esophagectomy from January 2013 to March 2014 were enrolled in this study. These patients were divided into two groups (MIE and OE group). Three scoring scales of quality of life were used to evaluate QOL before the operation and at the first, third, sixth and twelfth months after MIE or OE, which consist of Karnofshy performance scale (KPS), the European Organization for Research and Treatment questionnaire QLQC-30 (EORTC QLQC-30) and esophageal cancer supplement scale (OES-18). The MIE group was higher than the OE group in one-year survival rate (92.54% vs. 72.00%). Significant differences between the two groups were observed in intraoperative bleeding volume (158.53 ± 91.07 mL vs. 228.97 ± 109.33 mL, p = 0.001), and the incidence of postoperative pneumonia (33.33% vs. 58.62%, p = 0.018). The KPS of MIE group was significantly higher than the OE group at the first (80 vs. 70, p = 0.004 < 0.05), third (90 vs. 80, p = 0.006 < 0.05), sixth (90 vs. 80, p = 0.007 < 0.05) and twelfth months (90 vs. 80, p = 0.004 < 0.05) after surgery. The QLQC-30 score of MIE group was better than OE group at first and twelfth months after the operation. The OES-18 score of MIE group was significantly better than OE group at first, sixth and twelfth months after surgery. The short-term quality of life in MIE group was better than OE group.

The evolution of surgical approach for esophageal cancer

Esophageal surgery for esophageal cancer has been performed for over a century now. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was first described in 1992, and it is now a standard approach in many countries. However, MIE is technically difficult and requires a long learning curve. It takes >100 cases to train for MIE with gastric tube reconstruction with an intrathoracic anastomosis. A possible option to overcome several challenges of MIE might be the use of a robotic system. A robot-assisted MIE was first described in 2005, and long-term results have shown its feasibility and safety. Over the years, different approaches for esophagectomy have been established. Our review discusses these developments and recent literature on open, minimally invasive and robotic esophageal surgery.

Standardizing procedures improves and homogenizes short-term outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy

PURPOSE

Esophageal cancer is one of the deadliest cancers worldwide. Esophagectomy with lymphadenectomy is regarded as the only curative option for resectable esophageal cancer, but it is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Multidisciplinary team (MDT) management was recently associated with improved outcomes after surgery for esophageal cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of standardizing procedures for minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in the MDT setting.

METHODS

This was a case-matched control study of 154 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position (TEP) between 2012 and 2016. Surgery was performed by two attending surgeons (surgeons A and B) who began working together in the same MDT in 2015. At that time, the following surgical procedures were standardized between surgeons A and B: mediastinal lymphadenectomy, abdominal procedures, and estimation of the blood supply of the gastric conduit. Short-term outcomes were compared between the following paired groups using propensity scores: surgeon A's pre- and post-standardization groups, surgeon B's pre- and post-standardization groups, and surgeon A's post-standardization group and surgeon B's post-standardization group.

RESULTS

Concerning surgeon A, the estimated total blood loss in the post-standardization group (142 ± 87 mL) was significantly lower than that in the pre-standardization group (376 ± 215 mL, P = 0.006). The rate of left recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy in the post-standardization group (13%) was significantly lower than that in the pre-standardization group (47%, P = 0.046). Concerning surgeon B, the rate of anastomotic leakage in the post-standardization group (0%) was significantly lower than that in the pre-standardization group (11%, P = 0.039). Comparing the post-standardization groups of surgeons A and B, there were no significant differences in operative outcomes or morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Standardizing procedures for MIE improved and homogenized surgical short-term outcomes.

Mastering minimally invasive esophagectomy requires a mentor; experience of a personal mentorship

Since the first laparoscopic procedure, there has been an steady increase in advanced minimally invasive surgery. These procedures include oncological colorectal, hepatobiliary and upper gastrointestinal surgery. Implementation of these procedures requires different and new skills for the surgeons who wish to perform these procedures. To accomplish this surgical teaching program, a mentorship seems the most ideal method to teach the apprentice surgeon these specific skills.

At the VU medical center a teaching program for a minimally-invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer started in 2009. At first it started in different centers in the Netherlands and later on we also started mentoring other institutes throughout Europe, Latin America and India.

In this article we describe our experience and the outcomes of this mentorship in advanced minimally invasive surgery.

•

Not all residency programs include a teaching program with the guidance of dedicated mentors.

•

Teaching minimally invasive surgery requires a mentor.

•

A dedicated team should be set up for learning new minimally invasive techniques.

Techniques and short-term outcomes for total minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophageal resection in distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancers: pooled data from six European centers

Introduction

Esophagectomy for cancer can be performed in a two-stage procedure with an intrathoracic anastomosis: the Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. A growing incidence of distal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas and increasing use of minimally invasive techniques have prompted interest in this procedure. The aim of this study was to assess short-term results of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIE-IL).

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed from June 2007 until September 2014, including patients that underwent MIE-IL for distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer in six different hospitals in the Netherlands and Spain. Data were collected with regard to operative techniques, pathology and postoperative complications.

Results

In total, 282 patients underwent MIE-IL, of which 90.2 % received neoadjuvant therapy. Anastomotic leakage was observed in 43 patients (15.2 %), of whom 13 patients (4.6 %) had empyema, necessitating thoracotomy for decortication. With an aggressive treatment of complications, the 30-day and in-hospital mortality rate was 2.1 %. An R0-resection was obtained in 92.5 % of the patients. After neoadjuvant therapy, 20.1 % of patients had a complete response.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas is an upcoming approach for reducing morbidity caused by laparotomy and thoracotomy. Anastomotic leakage rate is still high possibly due to technical diversity of anastomotic techniques, and a high percentage of patients treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. An aggressive approach to complications leads to a low mortality of 2.1 %. Further improvement and standardization in the anastomotic technique are needed in order to perform a safe intrathoracic anastomosis.

Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is regarded as the only curative option for resectable oesophageal cancer, but pulmonary complications occurring in more than half of patients after open oesophagectomy are a great concern. We assessed whether minimally invasive oesophagectomy reduces morbidity compared with open oesophagectomy.

METHODS

We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial at five study centres in three countries between June 1, 2009, and March 31, 2011. Patients aged 18-75 years with resectable cancer of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction were randomly assigned via a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive either open transthoracic or minimally invasive transthoracic oesophagectomy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, and investigators undertaking interventions, assessing outcomes, and analysing data, were not masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was pulmonary infection within the first 2 weeks after surgery and during the whole stay in hospital. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR TC 2452.

FINDINGS

We randomly assigned 56 patients to the open oesophagectomy group and 59 to the minimally invasive oesophagectomy group. 16 (29%) patients in the open oesophagectomy group had pulmonary infection in the first 2 weeks compared with five (9%) in the minimally invasive group (relative risk [RR] 0·30, 95% CI 0·12-0·76; p=0·005). 19 (34%) patients in the open oesophagectomy group had pulmonary infection in-hospital compared with seven (12%) in the minimally invasive group (0·35, 0·16-0·78; p=0·005). For in-hospital mortality, one patient in the open oesophagectomy group died from anastomotic leakage and two in the minimally invasive group from aspiration and mediastinitis after anastomotic leakage.

INTERPRETATION

These findings provide evidence for the short-term benefits of minimally invasive oesophagectomy for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer.

FUNDING

Digestive Surgery Foundation of the Unit of Digestive Surgery of the VU University Medical Centre.

Traditional invasive vs. minimally invasive esophagectomy: a multi-center, randomized trial (TIME-trial)

BACKGROUND

There is a rise in incidence of esophageal carcinoma due to increasing incidence of adenocarcinoma. Probably the only curative option to date is the use of neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgical resection. Traditional open esophageal resection is associated with a high morbidity and mortality rate. Furthermore, this approach involves long intensive care unit stay, in-hospital stay and long recovery period. Minimally invasive esophagectomy could reduce the morbidity and accelerate the post-operative recovery.

METHODS/DESIGN

Comparison between traditional open and minimally invasive esophagectomy in a multi-center, randomized trial. Patients with a resectable intrathoracic esophageal carcinoma, including the gastro-esophageal junction tumors (Siewert I) are eligible for inclusion. Prior thoracic surgery and cervical esophageal carcinoma are indications for exclusion. The surgical technique involves a right thoracotomy with lung blockade and laparotomy either with a cervical or thoracic anastomosis for the traditional group. The minimally invasive procedure involves a right thoracoscopy in prone position with a single lumen tube and laparoscopy either with a cervical or thoracic anastomosis. All patients in both groups will undergo identical pre-operative and post-operative protocol. Primary endpoint of this study are post-operative respiratory complications within the first two post-operative weeks confirmed by clinical, radiological and sputum culture data. Secondary endpoints are the operative data, the post-operative data and oncological data such as quality of the specimen and survival. Operative data include duration of the operation, blood loss and conversion to open procedure. Post-operative data include morbidity (major and minor), quality of life tests and hospital stay.Based on current literature and the experience of all participating centers, an incidence of pulmonary complications for 57% in the traditional arm and 29% in the minimally invasive arm, it is estimated that per arm 48 patients are needed. This is based on a two-sided significance level (alpha) of 0.05 and a power of 0.80. Knowing that approximately 20% of the patients will be excluded, we will randomize 60 patients per arm.

DISCUSSION

The TIME-trial is a prospective, multi-center, randomized study to define the role of minimally invasive esophageal resection in patients with resectable intrathoracic and junction esophageal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION (NETHERLANDS TRIAL REGISTER): NTR2452.