Comparison of short-term outcomes from the International Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA), the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG), and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA)

Impact of pulmonary complications following esophagectomy on long-term survival: multivariate meta-analysis and restricted mean survival time assessment

Pulmonary complications (PC) are common after esophagectomy and their impact on long-term survival is not defined yet. The present study aimed to assess the effect of postoperative PCs on long-term survival after esophagectomy for cancer. Systematic review of the literature through February 1, 2023, was performed. The included studies evaluated the effect of PC on long-term survival. Primary outcome was long-term overall survival (OS). Cancer-specific survival (CSS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were secondary outcomes. Restricted mean survival time difference (RMSTD), hazard ratio (HR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as pooled effect size measures. Eleven studies were included (3423 patients). Overall, 674 (19.7%) patients developed PC. The RMSTD analysis shows that at 60-month follow-up, patients not experiencing PC live an average of 8.5 (95% CI 6.2-10.8; p < 0.001) months longer compared with those with PC. Similarly, patients not experiencing postoperative PC seem to have significantly longer CSS (8 months; 95% CI 3.7-12.3; p < 0.001) and DFS (5.4 months; 95% CI 1.6-9.1; p = 0.005). The time-dependent HRs analysis shows a reduced mortality hazard in patients without PC at 12 (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.51-0.69), 24 (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55-0.73), 36 (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.79), and 60 months (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51-0.89). This study suggests a moderate clinical impact of PC on long-term OS, CSS, and DFS after esophagectomy. Patients not experiencing PC seem to have a significantly reduced mortality hazard up to 5 years of follow-up.

Predictors and Significance of Readmission after Esophagogastric Surgery: A Nationwide Analysis

Objective

The aim of this study is to identify risk factors for readmission after elective esophagogastric cancer surgery and characterize the impact of readmission on long-term survival. The study will also identify whether the location of readmission to either the hospital that performed the primary surgery (index hospital) or another institution (nonindex hospital) has an impact on postoperative mortality.

Background

Over the past decade, the center-volume relationship has driven the centralization of major cancer surgery, which has led to improvements in perioperative mortality. However, the impact of readmission, especially to nonindex centers, on long-term mortality remains unclear.

Methods

This was a national population-based cohort study using Hospital Episode Statistics of adult patients undergoing esophagectomy and gastrectomy in England between January 2008 and December 2019.

Results

This study included 27,592 patients, of which overall readmission rates were 25.1% (index 15.3% and nonindex 9.8%). The primary cause of readmission to an index hospital was surgical in 45.2% and 23.7% in nonindex readmissions. Patients with no readmissions had significantly longer survival than those with readmissions (median: 4.5 vs 3.8 years; P < 0.001). Patients readmitted to their index hospital had significantly improved survival as compared to nonindex readmissions (median: 3.3 vs 4.7 years; P < 0.001). Minimally invasive surgery and surgery performed in high-volume centers had improved 90-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.75; P < 0.001; odds ratio, 0.60; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Patients requiring readmission to the hospital after surgery have an increased risk of mortality, which is worsened by readmission to a nonindex institution. Patients requiring readmission to the hospital should be assessed and admitted, if required, to their index institution.

From open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy to a hybrid robotic-assisted thoracoscopic approach: a single-center experience over two decades

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted procedures are increasingly used in esophageal cancer surgery. We compared postoperative complications and early oncological outcomes following hybrid robotic-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (Rob-E) and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (Open-E), performed in a single mid-volume center, in the context of evolving preoperative patient and tumor characteristics over two decades.

METHODS

We evaluated prospectively collected data from a single center from 1999 to 2020 including 321 patients that underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, 76 underwent Rob-E, and 245 Open-E. To compare perioperative outcomes, a 1:1 case-matched analysis was performed. Endpoints included postoperative morbidity and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Preoperative characteristics revealed increased rates of adenocarcinomas and wider use of neoadjuvant treatment over time. A larger number of patients with higher ASA grades were operated with Rob-E. In case-matched cohorts, there were no differences in the overall morbidity (69.7% in Rob-E, 60.5% in Open-E, p value 0.307), highest Clavien-Dindo grade per patient (43.4% vs. 38.2% grade I or II, p value 0.321), comprehensive complication index (median 20.9 in both groups, p value 0.401), and 30-day mortality (2.6% in Rob-E, 3.9% in Open-E, p value 1.000). Similar median numbers of lymph nodes were harvested (24.5 in Rob-E, 23 in Open-E, p value 0.204), and comparable rates of R0-status (96.1% vs. 93.4%, p value 0.463) and distribution of postoperative UICC stages (overall p value 0.616) were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates similar postoperative complications and early oncological outcomes after Rob-E and Open-E. However, the selection criteria for Rob-E appeared to be less restrictive than those of Open-E surgery.