Early Chest Tube Removal After Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy with High Output

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted and video assisted thoracic surgery for early non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Radical resection of lung cancer and chemotherapy are the main methods for the treatment of early lung cancer, but surgical treatment is still the key and preferred method.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) and video assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

The clinical cohort studies on the comparison of the effects of RATS and VATS in the treatment of NSCLC published in Web of Science, PubMed, The National Library of Medicine (NLM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang database from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2022 were searched. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data, such as operation time, intraoperative conversion rate, intraoperative blood loss, number of lymph nodes dissected, and evaluated the quality of the included literature based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RevMan 5.3 software was used for Meat analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 18 articles and 21,802 subjects were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the intraoperative blood loss of RATS was significantly less than that of VAS, and the difference was statistically significant [MD =-38.43 (95% CI: -57.71, -19.15, P< 0.001)]. Compared with VATS, the number of lymph nodes dissected in RATS was significantly higher [MD = 2.61 (95% CI: 0.47, 4.76, P= 0.02)]. The rate of conversion to thoracotomy in RATS was lower, and the difference was statistically significant [OR = 0.59 (95% CI: 0.50, 0.70, P< 0.001)]. There was no significant difference between RATS and VATS in operation time [MD =-9.34 (95% CI: -28.72, 10.04, P= 0.34)], postoperative thoracic drainage time [MD =-0.08 (95% CI: -0.42, 0.26, P= 0.64)], postoperative hospital stay [MD =-0.05 (95% CI: -0.19, 0.08, P= 0.42)], postoperative mortality [OR = 0.88 (95% CI: 0.56, 1.36, P= 0.56)] and postoperative complications [OR = 1.03 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.13, P= 0.57)].

CONCLUSION

Compared with VATS, the number of lymph nodes dissected in RATS was significantly more, and the removal of lesions and lymph nodes was more thorough and accurate. More flexible and precise operation avoids the injury of important blood vessels during operation, effectively reduces the amount of blood loss during operation, shortens the indwelling time of thoracic drainage tube, and is conducive to postoperative rehabilitation of patients.

Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS)/Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI) consensus statement on intraoperative and postoperative interventions to reduce pulmonary complications after oesophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary complications are the most common morbidity after oesophagectomy, contributing to mortality and prolonged postoperative recovery, and have a negative impact on health-related quality of life. A variety of single or bundled interventions in the perioperative setting have been developed to reduce the incidence of pulmonary complications. Significant variation in practice exists across the UK. The aim of this modified Delphi consensus was to deliver clear evidence-based consensus recommendations regarding intraoperative and postoperative care that may reduce pulmonary complications after oesophagectomy.

METHODS

With input from a multidisciplinary group of 23 experts in the perioperative management of patients undergoing surgery for oesophageal cancer, a modified Delphi method was employed. Following an initial systematic review of relevant literature, a range of anaesthetic, surgical, and postoperative care interventions were identified. These were then discussed during a two-part virtual conference. Recommendation statements were drafted, refined, and agreed by all attendees. The level of evidence supporting each statement was considered.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on 12 statements on topics including operative approach, pyloric drainage strategies, intraoperative fluid and ventilation strategies, perioperative analgesia, postoperative feeding plans, and physiotherapy interventions. Seven additional questions concerning the perioperative management of patients undergoing oesophagectomy were highlighted to guide future research.

CONCLUSION

Clear consensus recommendations regarding intraoperative and postoperative interventions that may reduce pulmonary complications after oesophagectomy are presented.

Chest drainage after oesophageal resection: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Modern enhanced recovery protocols discourage drain use due to negative impacts on patient comfort, mobility, and recovery, and lack of proven clinical benefit. After oesophagectomy, however, drains are still routinely placed. This review aimed to assess the evidence for, and how best to use chest drains after oesophageal surgery.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane collaboration databases. Studies reporting outcomes for different types or uses of thoracic drainage, or outcomes related to drains after trans-thoracic oesophagectomy were included. Studies were collated into domains based on variations in number, position, type, removal criteria, diagnostic use and complications of drains. Methodological quality was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa and Jadad scores.

RESULTS

Among 434 potentially relevant studies, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria and these included 2564 patients. Studies that examined the number of drains showed pain reduction with a single drain compared to multiple drains (3 studies, n = 103), and transhiatal placement compared to intercostal (6 studies, n = 425). Amylase levels may aid diagnosis of anastomotic leak (9 studies, n = 888). Narrow calibre Blake drains may effectively drain both air and fluid (2 studies, n = 163). Drain removal criteria by daily drainage volumes of up to 300 mL did not impact subsequent effusion rates (2 studies, n = 130). Complications related directly to drains were reported by 3 studies (n = 59).

CONCLUSION

Available evidence on the impact of thoracic drainage after oesophagectomy is limited, but has the potential to negatively affect outcomes. Further research is required to determine optimum drainage strategies.

A propensity sore-matched study: Applying a modified chest tube drainage strategy in rapid rehabilitation following uni-portal thoracoscopic pulmonary wedge resection

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the value of a modified chest tube drainage strategy to a traditional drainage strategy in single-port thoracoscopic pulmonary wedge resection.

METHODS

From January 2019 to July 2021, we collected clinical data on 405 patients who underwent single-port thoracoscopic pulmonary wedge resection in the No.1 Department of Thoracic Surgery at Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, with 121 (29.9%) cases in the modified drainage strategy group and 284 (70.1%) cases in the traditional drainage strategy group. The propensity score matching method (Match Ratio = 1:1) was used to reduce differences in clinical characteristics between the two groups.

RESULTS

Following 1:1 propensity score matching, 120 matched pairs (240 patients) were included in the study. There was no significant difference in general clinical characteristics between the two groups. There was no statistical difference in intraoperative factors except for operative times (71.42 ± 22.98 min vs. 86.80 ± 36.75 min, p < 0.001). In terms of postoperative factors, there were significant differences in postoperative chest tube duration (0.00 ± 0.00 h vs. 32.68 ± 18.51 h, p < 0.001), total drainage volume (143.03 ± 118.33 ml vs. 187.73 ± 140.82 ml, p = 0.008), postoperative hospital stay (2.61 ± 0.70 days vs. 3.27 ± 1.88 days, p < 0.001), number of additional pain relief (0.14 ± 0.40 vs. 0.42 ± 0.74, p < 0.001), facial pain score (2.7 ± 1.8 vs. 3.6 ± 2.7, p = 0.005) and adverse events (p = 0.046). Furthermore, there was a statistical difference between the two groups regarding CTCAE grade-1 complication, but no statistical difference in CTCAE grade-2 complication.

CONCLUSIONS

A modified drainage strategy in single-port thoracoscopic pulmonary wedge resection is safe and feasible, allowing for less postoperative rehabilitation time, pain relief, reduced postoperative pleural effusion, and reduced clinical workload.

"Tubeless" esophagectomy: Less is more

The esophageal cancer surgery is a complex procedure with elevated rates of both morbidity and mortality, which is why, in order to achieve adequate results, it should be performed in high volume centers, where complete multidisciplinary support is available and recent clinical guidelines are applied. We describe the initial experience and the technique of "tubeless" esophagectomy where esophageal resection and mediastinal lymphadenectomy are performed and no drains nor tubes of any kind are placed, with the aim to decrease the level of surgical aggression, enhance the postoperative comfort and accelerate the patient́s recovery.

"Tubeless" esophagectomy: Less is more

The esophageal cancer surgery is a complex procedure with elevated rates of both morbidity and mortality, which is why, in order to achieve adequate results, it should be performed in high volume centers, where complete multidisciplinary support is available and recent clinical guidelines are applied. We describe the initial experience and the technique of "tubeless" esophagectomy where esophageal resection and mediastinal lymphadenectomy are performed and no drains nor tubes of any kind are placed, with the aim to decrease the level of surgical aggression, enhance the postoperative comfort and accelerate the patient́s recovery.

The Improved Mediastinal Drainage Strategy for the Enhanced Recovery System After Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

The improved drainage strategy was the transperitoneal placement of a single mediastinal drainage tube after esophagectomy. This study aimed to explore its effect on the incidence of postoperative complications, pain scores, and hospital stay.

METHODS

Data from 108 patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those in group A were treated with transthoracic placement of mediastinal drain and those in group B were treated with transperitoneal placement. The incidence of postoperative complications, pain scores, and postoperative hospital stay were compared.

RESULTS

The maximum pain scores in group B were significantly lower than those in group A from the first to the fourth postoperative days (PODs): POD1, 3.9 ± 0.7 vs 2.3 ± 0.7; POD2, 3.5 ± 0.8 vs 2.1 ± 0.7; POD3, 3.3 ± 0.8 vs 1.7 ± 0.8; and POD4, 3.1 ± 0.7 vs 1.7 ± 0.8 (all P < .001). Compared with group A, there were fewer postoperative analgesic drug users in group B (44.6% vs 17.9%; P = .005), fewer cases of pleural effusion (10.7% vs 0%; P = .045), and fewer cases of closed thoracic drainage due to pleural effusion or pneumothorax (14.3% vs 0%; P = .014). There were no significant differences in the incidence of anastomotic leakage, mediastinitis, major pulmonary complications, major abdominal complications, surgical site infection, and total postoperative complications, without statistical differences in postoperative hospital stay and 30-d mortality (all P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The transperitoneal placement of a single mediastinal drain can reduce postoperative pain and the incidence of pleural effusion, without increasing the incidence of other major postoperative complications and postoperative hospital stay.

Risk factors associated with increased drainage volumes of chest tubes after transthoracic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

PURPOSE

Prolonged chest drain placement can extend the postoperative hospital stay after esophagectomy in esophageal cancer (EC) patients. This study aimed to identify whether or not the risk factors associated with this prolonged chest tube placement are clinically important.

METHODS

A total of 138 patients who underwent subtotal esophagectomy for thoracic EC were retrospectively analyzed. Using the 75th percentile of the total drainage volume of chest tubes as a cutoff value, the high-output (HO; n = 35) and low-output (LO; n = 103) groups were compared in terms of the clinicopathological parameters.

RESULTS

The median durations of right and left chest tube placement were 6 and 9 days, respectively, with a median total drainage volume of 2692 ml. When compared with the LO group, the HO group was significantly associated with male gender, a subcutaneous route for reconstruction, blood transfusion, higher morbidity, and prolonged chest drainage and postoperative hospital stays. A multivariable analysis further identified blood loss (p = 0.03) and the subcutaneous route for reconstruction (p = 0.04) as independent risk factors for increased chest tube drainage after esophagectomy.

CONCLUSION

Blood loss and the subcutaneous route of reconstruction are risk factors for increased drainage of chest tube after esophagectomy for EC.

Feasibility of a single mediastinal drain through the abdominal wall after esophagectomy

This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of a single mediastinal drainage tube in the thoracic and abdominal cavity after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). This study was undertaken to determine if the procedure could be included in a fast-track surgery program for resectable esophageal carcinoma (EC).From June 17 to November 30, 2015, clinical data for 78 eligible patients who had undergone a fast-track surgery program and MIE were retrospectively analyzed. Twenty-eight patients had a chest tube and mediastinal drainage tube. Thirty-four patients had only a mediastinal drainage tube through the intercostal space. The remaining 30 patients had a single mediastinal drainage tube in the thoracic and abdominal cavity through the abdominal wall. The complication rates and pain scores for each of the groups were compared. The statistical calculations were performed using SPSS 17.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). The quantitative data among the groups were compared using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The Chi-square, Mann-Whitney U and Fisher exact tests were used for qualitative data analysis.There were no significant differences in the anastomotic leak rates, postoperative days and total complication rates (P = .861). The lowest visual analog scale (VAS) scores of the drainage tubes were observed in the group with a single mediastinal drain through the abdominal wall (P <.001).The results of this study suggested that a single mediastinal drainage tube in the thoracic and abdominal cavity after MIE may be safe and efficient. This clinical practice is a part of our fast-track surgery program.

Transhiatal Chest Drainage After Hybrid Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy: Proof of Concept Study

BACKGROUND

Intercostal pleural drainage is standard practice after transthoracic esophagectomy but has some drawbacks. We hypothesized that a transhiatal pleural drain introduced through the subxyphoid port site incision at laparoscopy can be as effective as the intercostal drainage and may enhance patient recovery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A proof of concept study was designed to assess a new method of pleural drainage in patients undergoing hybrid Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (laparoscopy and right thoracotomy). The main study aims were safety and efficacy of transhiatal pleural drainage with a 15 Fr Blake tube connected to a portable vacuum system. Pre- and postoperative data, mean duration, and total and daily output of drainage were recorded in an electronic database. Postoperative complications were scored according to the Dindo-Clavien classification.

RESULTS

Between June 2015 and December 2016, 50 of 63 consecutive patients met the criteria for inclusion in the study. No conversions from the portable vacuum system to underwater seal and suction occurred. There was no mortality. The overall morbidity rate was 40%. Two patients (4%) required reoperation for hemothorax and chylothorax, respectively. Percutaneous catheter drainage for residual pneumothorax was necessary in 2 patients (4%) on postoperative day 2. The mean duration of drainage was 7 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 2), and the total volume of drain output was 1580 mL (IQR = 880). No pleural effusion on chest X-ray was detected at the 3-month follow-up visit.

CONCLUSIONS

Transhiatal pleural drainage is safe and effective after hybrid Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and could replace the intercostal drain in selected patients.

Is thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy a better alternative to thoracoscopic esophagectomy?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is gaining rapid popularity as an alternative to conventional open esophagectomy. However, whether incorporating laparoscopy into MIE can further help the patients with esophageal cancer has rarely been studied. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term clinical efficacy of thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy (TLE) compared with thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) in treating esophageal cancer.

METHODS

From September 2014 to December 2016, a total of 131 patients with esophageal cancer who had consecutively undergone MIE were included in the analysis; of them, TLE was performed in 71 patients and TE in 60 patients. Characteristics and perioperative outcomes of all patients were collected and compared to determine differences between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Operation time (p = 0.172), chest drainage volume (p = 0.656), and pathologic staging (p = 0.671) were similar in the 2 groups. Compared with the TE approach, the TLE approach was associated with less blood loss during the operation (median, 100 vs 150 ml, p < 0.001), shorter chest drainage time (median, 2 vs 3 days, p < 0.001), a larger number of harvested lymph nodes (median, 24 vs 20, p < 0.001), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (median, 10 vs 11 days, p = 0.008). There was no significant difference between groups with regard to the major (grade ≥ III) and minor (grade < III) complications.

CONCLUSIONS

TLE is a safe and effective alternative to TE. Patients undergoing TLE may benefit from less blood loss, a larger number of harvested lymph nodes and faster postoperative recovery. Additional randomized controlled trial with longer follow-up is needed.