Efficacy of Laparoscopic Gastric Mobilization for Esophagectomy: Comparison with Open Thoraco-abdominal Approach

Ability of Laparoscopic Gastric Mobilization to Prevent Pulmonary Complications After Open Thoracotomy or Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy has a high risk of postoperative morbidity, and pulmonary complications are the most common causes of serious morbidity. Thoracoscopic esophagectomy has been reported to reduce postoperative pulmonary complications; however, it remains unclear whether laparoscopic gastric mobilization can reduce the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications after open thoracotomy or thoracoscopic esophagectomy. The present meta-analysis assessed the ability of laparoscopic gastric mobilization to prevent postoperative complications after open thoracotomy or thoracoscopic esophagectomy.

METHOD

Studies reported between January 2000 and April 2019 in the PubMed and the Cochrane Library databases that analyzed the impact of laparoscopy on postoperative complications were systematically reviewed. In the meta-analysis, data were pooled and the primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications. The secondary outcomes were other postoperative complications, operative details, length of hospital stay and postoperative mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies (1915 patients; 1 randomized trial, 1 prospective study and 11 observational studies) were included. Laparoscopic gastric mobilization after open thoracotomy resulted in significantly reduced postoperative pulmonary complications (OR = 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27-0.82, p = 0.008) and postoperative mortality (OR = 0.49, 95%CI: 0.25-0.94, p = 0.03). Similarly, laparoscopic gastric mobilization after thoracoscopic esophagectomy resulted in significantly reduced postoperative pulmonary complications (OR = 0.56, 95%CI: 0.37-0.84, p = 0.005) and anastomotic leakage (OR = 0.59, 95%CI: 0.39-0.91, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic gastric mobilization could be recommended for reducing postoperative pulmonary complications after esophagectomy irrespective of the thoracic approach.

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.

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.

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.

Short-term outcomes of robotic radical esophagectomy for esophageal cancer by a nontransthoracic approach compared with conventional transthoracic surgery

Transthoracic esophagectomy (TTE) is believed to have advantages for mediastinal lymphadenectomy in the treatment of resectable esophageal cancer despite its association with a greater incidence of pulmonary complications and postoperative mortality. Transhiatal esophagectomy is regarded as less invasive, though insufficient in terms of lymph node dissection. With the aim of achieving lymph dissection equivalent to that of TTE, we have developed a nontransthoracic esophagectomy (NTTE) procedure combining a video-assisted cervical approach for the upper mediastinum and a robot-assisted transhiatal approach for the middle and lower mediastinum. We prospectively studied 22 accumulated cases of NTTE and verified feasibility by analyzing perioperative and histopathological outcomes. We compared this group's short-term outcomes with outcomes of 139 equivalent esophageal cancer cases operated on at our institution by conventional TTE (TTE group). In the NTTE group, there were no procedure-related events and no midway conversions to the conventional surgery; the mean operation time was longer (median, 524 vs. 428 minutes); estimated blood loss did not differ significantly between the two groups (median, 385 mL vs. 490 mL); in the NTTE group, the postoperative hospital stay was shorter (median, 18 days vs. 24 days). No postoperative pneumonia occurred in the NTTE group. The frequencies of other major postoperative complications did not differ significantly, nor were there differences in the numbers of harvested mediastinal lymph nodes (median, 30 vs. 29) or in other histopathology findings. NTTE offers a new radical procedure for resection of esophageal cancer combining a cervical video-assisted approach and a transhiatal robotic approach. Although further accumulation of surgical cases is needed to corroborate these results, NTTE promises better prevention of pulmonary complications in the management of esophageal cancer.

Outcomes of thoracoscopic esophagectomy in prone position with laparoscopic gastric mobilization for esophageal cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of thoracoscopic esophagectomy performed in the prone position (TSE-PP) followed by laparoscopic gastric mobilization (LGM) compared with open thoracotomy and LGM, for esophageal cancers.

METHODS

We reviewed the records of 105 consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy with LGM for esophageal cancer at Kochi Medical School. Among the study patients, 60 patients underwent TSE-PP, while 45 underwent open thoracotomy (OPEN group). The perioperative outcomes of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

Compared to the OPEN group, the TSE-PP group had lower blood loss (TSE-PP, 150 mL; OPEN, 430 mL; P < 0.001), longer operative time (TSE-PP, 609 min; OPEN, 570 min; P = 0.012), more lymph nodes dissected around the left recurrent laryngeal nerve (TSE-PP, 6; OPEN, 2; P < 0.001), and a shorter length of hospital stay (TSE-PP, 16.5 days; OPEN, 35 days; P < 0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications was similar in the two groups. Though the recurrence rate and overall survival were not significantly different in the two groups, the TSE-PP group had better overall survival rates than the OPEN group (P = 0.122).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent TSE-PP with LGM for esophageal cancers recovered earlier after surgery compared to those who underwent open thoracotomy with LGM.

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.