Outcomes of Transhiatal and Intercostal Pleural Drain After Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy: Comparative Analysis of Two Consecutive Patient Cohorts

Feasibility of utilizing mediastinal drains alone following esophageal cancer surgery: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

It was typically necessary to place a closed thoracic drainage tube for drainage following esophageal cancer surgery. Recently, the extra use of thoracic mediastinal drainage after esophageal cancer surgery had also become more common. However, it had not yet been determined whether mediastinal drains could be used alone following esophageal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A total of 134 patients who underwent esophageal cancer surgery in our department between June 2020 and June 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 34 patients received closed thoracic drainage (CTD), 58 patients received closed thoracic drainage combined with mediastinal drainage (CTD-MD), while 42 patients received postoperative mediastinal drainage (MD). The general condition, incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications, postoperative NRS score, and postoperative anastomotic leakage were compared. The Mann-Whitney U tests, Welch's t tests, one-way ANOVA, chi-square tests and Fisher's exact tests were applied.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative hyperthermia, peak leukocytes, total drainage, hospitalization days and postoperative pulmonary complications between MD group and the other two groups. Interestingly, patients in the MD group experienced significantly lower postoperative pain compared to the other two groups. Additionally, abnormal postoperative drainage fluid could be detected early in this group. Furthermore, there was no significant change in the incidence of postoperative anastomotic leakage and the mortality rate of patients after the occurrence of anastomotic leakage in the MD group compared with the other two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Using mediastinal drain alone following esophageal cancer surgery was equally safe. Furthermore, it could substantially decrease postoperative pain, potentially replacing the closed thoracic drain in clinical practice.

Single chest drain is not inferior to double chest drain after robotic esophagectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis

Background

Chest drain management has a significant influence on postoperative recovery after robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). The use of chest drains increases postoperative pain by irritating intercostal nerves and hinders patients from early postoperative mobilization and recovery. To our knowledge, no study has investigated the use of two vs. one intercostal chest drains after RAMIE.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients undergoing elective RAMIE with gastric conduit pull-up and intrathoracic anastomosis. Patients were divided into two groups according to placement of one (11/2020-08/2022) or two (08/2018-11/2020) chest drains. Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio, and the incidences of overall and pulmonary complications, drainage-associated re-interventions, radiological diagnostics, analgesic use, and length of hospital stay were compared between single drain and double drain groups.

Results

During the study period, 194 patients underwent RAMIE. Twenty-two patients were included after propensity score matching in the single and double chest drain group, respectively. Time until removal of the last chest drain [postoperative day (POD) 6.7 ± 4.4 vs. POD 9.4 ± 2.7, p = 0.004] and intensive care unit stay (4.2 ± 5.1 days vs. 5.3 ± 3.5 days, p = 0.01) were significantly shorter in the single drain group. Overall and pulmonary complications, drainage-associated events, re-interventions, number of diagnostic imaging, analgesic use, and length of hospital stay were comparable between both groups.

Conclusion

This study is the first to demonstrate the safety of single intercostal chest drain use and, at least, non-inferiority to double chest drains in terms of perioperative complications after RAMIE.

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.

Transthoracic Esophagectomy: Hand-sewn Versus Side-to-side Linear-stapled Versus Circular-stapled Anastomosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Three anastomotic techniques are mostly used to create an esophagogastric anastomosis in a transthoracic esophagectomy: hand-sewn (HS), side-to-side linear-stapled (SSLS), and circular-stapled (CS). The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcomes after HS, SSLS, and CS intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review using the MEDLINE database was performed to identify original articles analyzing outcomes after HS, SSLS, and CS esophagogastric anastomosis. The main outcome was an anastomotic leakage rate. Secondary outcomes included overall morbidity, major morbidity, and mortality. A meta-analysis of proportions and linear regression models were used to assess the effect of each anastomotic technique on the different outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 101 studies comprising 12,595 patients were included; 8835 (70.1%) with CS, 2532 (20.1%) with HS, and 1228 (9.8%) with SSLS anastomosis. Anastomotic leak occurred in 10% [95% confidence interval (CI), 6%-15%], 9% (95% CI, 6%-13%), and 6% (95% CI, 5%-7%) of patients after HS, SSLS, and CS anastomosis, respectively. Risk of anastomotic leakage was significantly higher with HS anastomosis (odds ratio=1.73, 95% CI: 1.47-2.03, P<0.0001) and SSLS (odds ratio=1.68, 95% CI: 1.36-2.08, P<0.0001), as compared with CS. Overall morbidity (HS: 52% vs. SLSS: 39% vs. CS: 35%) and major morbidity (HS: 33% vs. CS: 19%) rates were significantly lower with CS anastomosis. Mortality rate was 4% (95% CI, 3%-6%), 2% (95% CI, 2%-3%), and 3% (95% CI, 3%-4%) after HS, SSLS, and CS anastomosis, respectively.

CONCLUSION

HS and SSLS intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomoses are associated with significantly higher rates of an anastomotic leak than CS anastomosis.

Comparison of pleural drain amylase and serum C-reactive protein for early detection of intrathoracic esophago-gastric anastomotic leaks

INTRODUCTION

Early detection of anastomotic leaks following esophagectomy has the potential to reduce hospital length of stay and mortality. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive value of pleural drain amylase and serum C-reactive protein for the early diagnosis of leak.

METHODS

A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted on 121 patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and intrathoracic gastric conduit reconstruction. Pleural drain amylase levels were measured daily until postoperative day (POD) 5 and compared with CRP values measured on POD 3, 5, and 7. Specificity and sensitivity for both tests, and the respective ROC curves, were calculated.

RESULTS

Anastomotic leak occurred in 12 patients. There was a significant statistical association between pleural drain amylase and serum CRP levels and the presence of anastomotic leakage. Pleural drain amylase cutoff of 209 IU/L on POD 2 yielded a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 94% (AUC = 0.813), whereas CRP cutoff value of 22.5 mg/dL on POD 3 yielded a sensitivity of 56% and a specificity of 92% (AUC = 0.772). The negative likelihood ratio of pleural drain amylase was 0.27 and 0.12 on POD 2 and 5, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between ROC curves of amylase and CRP on POD 3 and 5 (p = 0.79 and p = 0.14, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Pleural drain amylase seems more efficient than serum CRP for early detection of esophago-gastric anastomotic leak. The practice of monitoring drain amylase and CRP may allow safer implementation of enhanced postoperative recovery pathway.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer in COVID hospitals and oncological hubs: are the outcomes different?

Introduction

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused significant delays in oncological care worldwide due to restriction of elective surgery and intensive care unit capacity. It has been hypothesized that COVID-free oncological hubs can provide safer elective cancer surgery compared to COVID hospitals. The primary aim of the present study was to analyze the outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer performed in both hospital settings by the same surgical staff.

Methods

All esophagectomies for cancer performed during the pandemic by a single team were reviewed and data were compared with control patients operated during the preceding year. Screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was performed prior to surgery, and special precautions were taken to mitigate hospital-related transmission of COVID-19 among patients and healthcare workers.

Results

Compared to the prepandemic period, the esophagectomy volume decreased by 64%. Comorbidities, time from onset of symptoms to first visit, waiting time between diagnosis and surgery, operative approach and technique, and the pathological staging were similar. None of the patients tested positive for COVID-19 during in-hospital stay, and esophagectomy was associated with similar outcomes compared to control patients.

Conclusion

Outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer performed in a COVID hospital after implementation of a COVID-free surgical pathway did not differ from those obtained in an oncological hub by the same surgical team.