Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

Single-Center Randomized Trial Comparing Feeding Jejunostomy with Nasojejunal Tube Placement in Patients Undergoing Transhiatal Esophagectomy Post-Neoadjuvant Therapy for Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Enteral nutrition is the preferred mode of nutrition following esophagectomy. However, the preferred mode of enteral nutrition (feeding jejunostomy (FJ) vs. nasojejunal (NJ) tube) remains contentious. In this randomized controlled trial (RCT), we compared FJ with NJ tube feeding in terms of safety, feasibility, efficacy, and quality-of-life (QOL) parameters in Indian patients undergoing trans-hiatal esophagectomy (THE) for carcinoma esophagus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center, two-armed (FJ and NJ tube), non-inferiority RCT was conducted from March 2020 to January 2024. Forty-eight patients underwent THE with posterior-mediastinal-gastric pull-up and were randomized to NJ and FJ arms (24 in each group). The postoperative complications, catheter efficacy, and QOL parameters were compared between the two groups till the 6-week follow-up.

RESULTS

In this RCT, we found no significant difference in the occurrence of catheter-related complications, postoperative complication rate, catheter efficacy, and visual analog pain scores between patients with NJ tube and FJ, following THE for esophageal cancer. There was a significantly better self-reported physical domain QOL score noted in the NJ group, both at the time of discharge (44.7 ± 6.2 vs 39.8 + 5.6; p value, 0.005) and at the 6-week follow-up (55.4 ± 5.2 vs 48.6 ± 4.5; p value, < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings of our RCT, we conclude that both enteral access methods (NJ vs. FJ) exhibit comparable incidences of catheter-related complications. The use of NJ tube is a viable alternative to a surgical FJ, has the benefit of early removal, and saves the distress associated with a tube per abdomen.

Effectiveness of long-term tube feeding intervention in preventing skeletal muscle loss after minimally invasive esophagectomy

PURPOSE

Esophageal cancer is a lethal tumor typically treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery. For patients undergoing esophagectomy, postoperative enteral nutrition is important in preventing complications. Sarcopenia is associated with poor postoperative outcomes in esophageal cancer. In this study, we evaluated the benefits of tube feeding intervention and compared its short- and long-term outcomes in patients who underwent esophagectomy.

METHODS

Propensity score matching was performed in 303 patients who underwent esophagectomy at Kobe University Hospital between 2010 and 2020. Patients were divided into feeding and nonfeeding jejunostomy tube groups (n = 70 each). The feeding jejunostomy tube group was further divided into long-term (≥ 60 days) and short-term (< 60 days) subgroups. The groups were then retrospectively compared regarding postoperative albumin levels, body weight, and psoas muscle area and volume.

RESULTS

In the long-term feeding jejunostomy tube group, anastomotic leakage (p = 0.013) and left laryngeal nerve palsy (p = 0.004) occurred frequently. There were no significant between-group differences in postoperative albumin levels, body weight, or psoas muscle area. However, significant psoas muscle volume recovery was confirmed in the long-term jejunostomy tube group at 6 months postoperatively (p = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Tube feeding intervention after minimally invasive esophagectomy may attenuate skeletal muscle mass loss and help prevent sarcopenia.

Benefit of a laparoscopic jejunostomy feeding catheter insertion to prevent bowel obstruction associated with feeding jejunostomy after esophagectomy

The placement of a jejunostomy catheter during esophagectomy may cause postoperative bowel obstruction. The proximity of the jejunostomy site to the midline might be associated with bowel obstruction, and we have introduced laparoscopic jejunostomy (Lap-J) to reduce jejunostomy's left lateral gap. We evaluated 92 patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between February 2013 and August 2022 to clarify the benefits of Lap-J compared to other methods. The patients were classified into two groups according to the method of feeding catheter insertion: jejunostomy via small laparotomy (J group, n = 75), and laparoscopic jejunostomy (Lap-J group, n = 17). Surgery for bowel obstruction associated with the feeding jejunostomy catheter (BOFJ) was performed on 11 in the J group. Comparing the J and Lap-J groups, the distance between the jejunostomy and midline was significantly longer in the Lap-J group (50 mm vs. 102 mm; P < 0.001). Regarding surgery for BOFJ, the distance between the jejunostomy and midline was significantly shorter in the surgery group than in the non-surgery group (43 mm vs. 52 mm; P = 0.049). During esophagectomy, Lap-J can prevent BOFJ by placing the jejunostomy site at the left lateral position to the midline and reducing the left lateral gap of the jejunostomy.

Long-Term Outcomes of Colon Conduits in Surgery for Primary Esophageal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison to Gastric Conduits

Background

In the treatment of esophageal cancer, a gastric conduit is typically the first choice. However, when the stomach is not a viable option, the usual alternative is a colon conduit. This study compared the long-term surgical outcomes of gastric and colon conduits over the same interval and aimed to identify factors influencing the prognosis.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent esophagectomy followed by reconstruction for primary esophageal cancer between January 2006 and December 2020.

Results

The study included 1,545 patients, with a gastric conduit used for 1,429 (92.5%) and a colon conduit for 116 (7.5%). Using propensity-matched analysis, 116 patients were selected from each group for comparison. No significant difference was observed in long-term survival between the gastric and colon conduit groups, irrespective of anastomosis level and pathological stage. A higher proportion of patients in the colon conduit group experienced postoperative complications compared to the gastric conduit group (57.8% vs. 25%, p<0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed that age over 65 years, body mass index below 22.0 kg/m2, neoadjuvant therapy, postoperative anastomotic leakage, and renal failure were risk factors for overall survival in patients with a colon conduit. Regarding conduit-related complications, cervical anastomosis was the only significant risk factor among those with a colon conduit.

Conclusion

Despite the association of colon conduits with high morbidity rates relative to gastric conduits, the long-term outcomes of colon conduits were acceptable. More consideration should be given perioperatively to the use of a colon conduit, particularly in cases involving cervical anastomosis.

No difference in the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications between abdominal laparoscopy and laparotomy for minimally invasive thoracoscopic esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study using a nationwide Japanese database

INTRODUCTION

There remains a lack of evidence regarding the optimal abdominal approach, including laparoscopy, hand-assisted, and open laparotomy for minimally invasive thoracoscopic esophagectomy. We aimed to compare the incidence of postoperative complications, particularly pulmonary complications, between laparoscopy and open laparotomy for minimally invasive thoracoscopic esophagectomy using nationwide Japanese databases.

METHODS

Data from patients in the National Clinical Database (NCD) who underwent thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer were analyzed. The incidence of pulmonary complications was compared between abdominal laparoscopy and laparotomy after matching the propensity scores (PS) from preoperative factors to account for confounding bias. Laparoscopic-assisted surgery (LAS) was also compared to hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS).

RESULTS

Of the 24,790 patients who underwent esophagectomy between 2018 and 2021, data from 12,633 underwent thoracoscopic procedure. The proportion of patients who experienced pulmonary complications did not significantly differ between the laparoscopy group and the laparotomy group after matching (664/3195 patients, 20.8% versus 702/3195 patients, 22.0%; P = 0.25). No difference in the incidence of pulmonary complications was observed among patients treated using the laparoscopic approach (508/2439 patients, 20.8% in the LAS group versus 498/2439 patients, 20.4% in the HALS group; P = 0.72).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications between laparoscopy and laparotomy for thoracoscopic esophagectomy. Short-term outcomes were similar between the laparoscopic-assisted approach and the hand-assisted approach. This study provides valuable insights into the optimal abdominal approach for thoracoscopic esophagectomy using data from a nationwide database that reflect real-world clinical practice.

Esophageal cancer - French intergroup clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatments and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, SFP, RENAPE, SNFCP, AFEF, SFR)

INTRODUCTION

This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of esophageal cancer (EC) published in July 2022, available on the website of the French Society of Gastroenterology (SNFGE) (www.tncd.org).

METHODS

This collaborative work was conducted under the auspices of several French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of EC. Recommendations were graded in three categories (A, B and C), according to the level of evidence found in the literature until April 2022.

RESULTS

EC diagnosis and staging evaluation are mainly based on patient's general condition assessment, endoscopy plus biopsies, TAP CT-scan and 18F FDG-PET. Surgery alone is recommended for early-stage EC, while locally advanced disease (N+ and/or T3-4) is treated with perioperative chemotherapy (FLOT) or preoperative chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by immunotherapy for adenocarcinoma. Preoperative chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by immunotherapy or definitive chemoradiation with the possibility of organ preservation are the two options for squamous cell carcinoma. Salvage surgery is recommended for incomplete response or recurrence after definitive chemoradiation and should be performed in an expert center. Treatment for metastatic disease is based on systemic therapy including chemotherapy, immunotherapy or combined targeted therapy according to biomarkers testing such as HER2 status, MMR status and PD-L1 expression.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines are intended to provide a personalised therapeutic strategy for daily clinical practice and are subject to ongoing optimization. Each individual case should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team.

Short-term outcome of totally minimally invasive versus hybrid minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy

OBJECTIVES

For resectable esophageal cancer, the choice of total minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) or hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term clinical outcomes of TMIE and HMIE under the Ivor-Lewis procedure.

METHODS

The data of 145 patients diagnosed with middle or lower esophageal cancer who underwent radical Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University between January 2018 and December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The short-term outcomes such as complications during surgery or within 30 days after surgery and postoperative pain were analyzed.

RESULTS

All patients were divided into TMIE group (75 patients) and HMIE group (70 patients). No significant difference was observed in the baseline characteristics of the two groups. TMIE was associated with less blood loss than the HMIE group (p < 0.05). A total of 54 (37.2%) patients had postoperative complications. Although the two groups were statistically similar in the incidence of major complications, patients in the HMIE group were more likely to have pneumonia compared with those in the TMIE group. The numeric rating scale for pain was significantly higher in the HMIE group (p = 0.002) and more patients required an additional opioid analgesia after esophagectomy (p = 0.282).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, according to perioperative outcomes, TMIE can benefit patients better than HMIE.

Risk factors for refractory enterocutaneous fistula following button jejunostomy removal and its treatment using a novel extraperitoneal approach in patients with oesophageal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Enterocutaneous fistula after removal of the jejunostomy tube leads to multiple problems, such as cosmetic problems, decreased quality of life, electrolyte imbalances, infectious complications, and increased medical costs. However, the risk factors for refractory enterocutaneous fistula (REF) after button jejunostomy removal remain unclear. Therefore, in this study, we assessed the risk factors for REF after button jejunostomy removal in patients with oesophageal cancer and reported the surgical outcomes of the novel extraperitoneal approach (EPA) for REF closure.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 47 patients who underwent button jejunostomy removal after oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer. We assessed the risk factors for REF in these patients and reported the surgical outcomes of the novel EPA for REF closure at the International University of Health and Welfare Hospital between March 2013 and October 2021. The primary endpoint was defined as the occurrence of REF after removal of the button jejunostomy, which was assessed using a maintained database. The risk factors and outcomes of the EPA for REF closure were retrospectively analysed.

RESULTS

REFs occurred in 15 (31.9%) patients. In the univariate analysis, REF was significantly more common in patients with albumin level < 4.0 g/dL (p = 0.026), duration > 12 months for button jejunostomy removal (p = 0.003), and with a fistula < 15.0 mm (p = 0.002). The multivariate analysis revealed that a duration > 12 months for button jejunostomy removal (odds ratio [OR]: 7.15; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.38-36.8; p = 0.019) and fistula < 15.0 mm (OR: 8.08; 95% CI: 1.50-43.6; p = 0.002) were independent risk factors for REF. EPA for REF closure was performed in 15 patients. The technical success rate of EPA was 88.2%. Of the 15 EPA procedures, fistula closure was achieved in 12 (80.0%). The complications of EPA (11.7%) were major leakages (n = 3) and for two of them, EPA procedure was re-performed, and closure of the fistula was finally achieved.

CONCLUSION

This study suggested that duration > 12 months for button jejunostomy removal and fistula < 15.0 mm are the independent risk factors for REF after button jejunostomy removal. EPA for REF closure is a novel, simple, and useful surgical option for patients with REF after oesophagectomy.

Single-port inflatable mediastinoscopic esophagectomy is a cure for esophageal cancer patients: Case report

RATIONALE

It is often difficult to perform transthoracic esophagectomy (TTE) in patients with chest deformities, as these patients may be lost to surgery for non-oncological reasons.

PATIENT CONCERNS

In this case, we had a patient with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) who was not suitable for TTE because of extensive thoracic adhesions caused by the left pneumonectomy 8 years ago.

DIAGNOSES

ESCC.

INTERVENTIONS

Based on Professor Fujiwara's surgical method, we further improved it by proposing a single-port inflatable mediastinoscopy combined with laparoscopic-assisted esophagectomy.

OUTCOMES

At the time of this writing, computed tomography and gastroscopy revealed no stenosis of anastomosis, and no evidence of disease recurrence.

LESSONS

To the best of our knowledge, the present case is the first single-port inflatable mediastinoscopic esophagectomy performed on a patient undergoing pneumonectomy.

Effect of the Age-Adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index on the Survival of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients after Radical Esophagectomy

We aimed to investigate whether the age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index (ACCI) can predict the postoperative overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients. Between 1 July 2015 and 31 July 2021, a retrospective cohort study was conducted among patients with primary ESCC who underwent radical esophagectomy. A total of 352 patients were included, with median age of 63.00 (IQR (interquartile range) 56.00-68.00). The patients were divided into low (n = 300) and high (n = 52) ACCI groups based on the optimal cut-off value of 5 points. Chronic pulmonary disease (38.4%) was the most common comorbidity. The results of the multivariate Cox regression showed that the ACCI (HR = 1.63, 95%CI: 1.04-2.56), tumor size (HR = 1.67, 95%CI: 1.05-2.66), pTNM (II vs. I, HR = 4.74, 95%CI: 1.82-12.32; III vs. I, HR = 6.08, 95%CI: 2.37-15.60), and postoperative chemotherapy (HR = 0.60, 95%CI: 0.40-0.91) were significantly associated with the OS. Furthermore, the ACCI, tumor size, pTNM, and postoperative chemotherapy were also significantly associated with the CSS. Interactions were identified between the ACCI and postoperative chemotherapy, pTNM stage, and tumor size in relation to the OS and CSS. In conclusion, the ACCI may be an independent prognostic factor affecting the long-term prognosis of patients after radical esophagectomy.

Risk Factors and Effect of Intrathoracic Anastomotic Leakage after Esophagectomy for Underlying Malignancy-A Ten-Year Analysis at a Tertiary University Centre

Aim: Surgical resection remains the treatment of choice for curable esophageal cancer patients. Anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy with an intrathoracic anastomosis is the most feared complication, and is the main cause of postoperative morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors associated with anastomotic leakage and its effect on the postoperative outcome. Methods: Between 2012 and 2022, all patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for underlying malignancy were included in this study. We performed a retrospective analysis of 174 patients. The dataset was analyzed to identify risk factors for the occurrence of anastomotic leakage. Results: A total of 174 patients were evaluated. The overall anastomotic leakage rate was 18.96%. The 30-day mortality rate was 8.62%. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified diabetes (p = 0.0020) and obesity (p = 0.027) as independent risk factors associated with anastomotic leakage. AL had a drastic effect on the combined ICU/IMC and overall hospital stay (p < 0.001. Conclusion: Anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis is the most feared complication and major cause of morbidity and mortality. Identifying risk factors preoperatively can contribute to better patient management.

Short- and long-term outcomes in patients operated with total minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

At our hospital, the main treatment for resectable esophageal cancer (EC) has since 2013 been total minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE). The aim of this study was to present the short- and long-term results in patients operated with TMIE. This cross-sectional study includes all patients scheduled for TMIE from June 2013 to January 2016 at Oslo University Hospital. Data on morbidity, mortality, and survival were retrospectively collected from the patient administration system and the Norwegian Cause of Death Registry. Long-term postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQL) and level of dysphagia were assessed by patients completing the following questionaries: EORTC QLQ-OG25, QLQ-C30, and the Ogilvie grading scale. A total of 123 patients were included in this study with a median follow-up time of 58 months (1-88 months). 85% had adenocarcinoma, 15% squamous cell carcinoma. Seventeen patients (14%) had T1N0M0, 68 (55%) T2-T3N0M0, or T1-T2N1M0 and 38 (31%) had either T3N1M0 or T4anyNM0. Ninety-eight patients (80%) received neoadjuvant (radio)chemotherapy and 104 (85%) had R0 resection. Anastomotic leak rate and 90-days mortality were 14% and 2%, respectively. The 5-year overall survival was 53%. Patients with tumor free resection margins of >1 mm (R0) had a 5-year survival of 57%. Median 60 months (range 49-80) postoperatively the main symptoms reducing HRQL were anxiety, chough, insomnia, and reflux. Median Ogilvie score was 0 (0-1). In this study, we report relatively low mortality and good overall survival after TMIE for EC. Moreover, key symptoms reducing long-term HRQL were identified.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) vs. hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: propensity score matched short-term outcome analysis of a European high-volume center

INTRODUCTION

Transthoracic esophagectomy is a highly complex and sophisticated procedure with high morbidity rates and a significant mortality. Surgical access has consistently become less invasive, transitioning from open esophagectomy to hybrid esophagectomy (HE) then to totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), and most recently to robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE), with each step demonstrating improved patient outcomes. Aim of this study with more than 600 patients is to complete a propensity-score matched comparison of postoperative short-term outcomes after highly standardized RAMIE vs. HE in a European high volume center.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Six hundred and eleven patients that underwent transthoracic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between May 2016 and May 2021 were included in the study. In January 2019, we implemented an updated robotic standardized anastomotic technique using a circular stapler and ICG (indocyanine green) for RAMIE cases. Data were retrospectively analyzed from a prospectively maintained IRB-approved database. Outcomes of patients undergoing standardized RAMIE from January 2019 to May 2021 were compared to our overall cohort from May 2016-April 2021 (HE) after a propensity-score matching analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Six hundred and eleven patients were analyzed. 107 patients underwent RAMIE. Of these, a total of 76 patients underwent a robotic thoracic reconstruction using the updated standardized circular stapled anastomosis (RAMIE group). A total of 535 patients underwent HE (Hybrid group). Seventy patients were propensity-score matched in each group and analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics. RAMIE patients had a significantly shorter ICU stay (p = 0.0218). Significantly more patients had no postoperative complications (Clavien Dindo 0) in the RAMIE group [47.1% vs. 27.1% in the HE group (p = 0.0225)]. No difference was seen in lymph node yield and R0 resection rates. Anastomotic leakage rates when matched were 14.3% in the hybrid group vs. 4.3% in the RAMIE group (p = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis confirms the safety and feasibility of RAMIE and HE in a large cohort after propensity score matching. A regular postoperative course (Clavien-Dindo 0) and a shorter ICU stay were seen significantly more often after RAMIE compared to HE. Furthermore it shows that both procedures provide excellent short-term oncologic outcomes, regarding lymph node harvest and R0 resection rates. A randomized controlled trial comparing RAMIE and HE is still pending and will hopefully contribute to ongoing discussions.

Outcomes after totally minimally invasive versus hybrid and open Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy: results from the International Esodata Study Group

BACKGROUND

Large studies comparing totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIE) with laparoscopically assisted (hybrid) oesophagectomy are lacking. Although randomized trials have compared TMIE invasive with open oesophagectomy, daily clinical practice does not always resemble the results reported in such trials. The aim of the present study was to compare complications after totally minimally invasive, hybrid and open Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy in patients with oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

The study was performed using data from the International Esodata Study Group registered between February 2015 and December 2019. The primary outcome was pneumonia, and secondary outcomes included the incidence and severity of anastomotic leakage, (major) complications, duration of hospital stay, escalation of care, and 90-day mortality. Data were analysed using multivariable multilevel models.

RESULTS

Some 8640 patients were included between 2015 and 2019. Patients undergoing TMIE had a lower incidence of pneumonia than those having hybrid (10.9 versus 16.3 per cent; odds ratio (OR) 0.56, 95 per cent c.i. 0.40 to 0.80) or open (10.9 versus 17.4 per cent; OR 0.60, 0.42 to 0.84) oesophagectomy, and had a shorter hospital stay (median 10 (i.q.r. 8-16) days versus 14 (11-19) days (P = 0.041) and 11 (9-16) days (P = 0.027) respectively). The rate of anastomotic leakage was higher after TMIE than hybrid (15.1 versus 10.7 per cent; OR 1.47, 1.01 to 2.13) or open (15.1 versus 7.3 per cent; OR 1.73, 1.26 to 2.38) procedures.

CONCLUSION

Compared with hybrid and open Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy, TMIE resulted in a lower pneumonia rate, a shorter duration of hospital stay, but higher anastomotic leakage rates. Therefore, no clear advantage was seen for either TMIE, hybrid or open Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy when performed in daily clinical practice.

Completely minimally invasive versus hybrid Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy for oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junctional cancer: a UK multi-centre comparative study

BACKGROUND

Limited robust evidence exists comparing outcomes following completely minimally invasive oesophagectomy (CMIO) to hybrid oesophagectomy (HO) in the treatment of resectable oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junctional (GOJ) cancer. This multi-centre study aims to assess postoperative morbidity between HO and CMIO according to the full Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) complication platform.

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing an Ivor-Lewis HO or Ivor-Lewis CMIO for cancer between 2016 and 2018 in three UK tertiary centres were included. The primary study outcome was 30-day overall complications, evaluated by the ECCG complication subgroups. Secondary outcomes included survival outcomes and perioperative parameters between the two approaches.

RESULTS

Of the 382 patients included, 228 (59.7%) patients had HOs and 154 (40.3%) patients had CMIOs with no inter-group baseline differences. Patients undergoing CMIO experienced less 30-day postoperative complications compared to those under undergoing HO (43.5% vs 57.0%, p = 0.010). ECCG defined pulmonary and infective complications were less frequent in the CMIO group. Anastomotic leak rates and oncological outcomes were similar between the two groups. Independent predictors of 30-day postoperative complications include surgical approach with HO and high ASA grade on multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Ivor-Lewis CMIO demonstrates superior short-term surgical outcomes when compared to Ivor-Lewis HO with no compromise in oncological feasibility. Anastomotic leak rates were equivalent between both groups. A robust randomised controlled trial is required to validate the findings of this study.

Surgical outcomes after totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A transthoracic esophagectomy is associated with high rates of morbidity. Minimally invasive esophagectomy has emerged to decrease such morbidity. The aim of this study was to accurately determine surgical outcomes after totally minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy (TMIE).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify original articles analyzing patients who underwent TMIE. Main outcomes included overall morbidity, major morbidity, pneumonia, arrhythmia, anastomotic leak, chyle leak, and mortality. A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the overall weighted proportion and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for each analyzed outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 5619 patients were included for analysis; 4781 (85.1%) underwent a laparoscopic/thoracoscopic esophagectomy and 838 (14.9%) a robotic-assisted esophagectomy. Mean age of patients was 63.5 (55-67) years and 75.8% were male. Overall morbidity and major morbidity rates were 39% (95% CI, 33%-45%) and 20% (95% CI, 13%-28%), respectively. Postoperative pneumonia and arrhythmia rates were 10% (95% CI, 8%-13%) and 12% (95% CI, 8%-17%), respectively. Anastomotic leak rate across studies was 8% (95% CI, 6%-10%). Chyle leak rate was 3% (95% CI, 2%-5%). Mortality rate was 2% (95% CI, 2%-2%). Median ICU stay and length of hospital stay were 2 (1-4) and 11.2 (7-20) days, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Totally minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy is a challenging procedure with high morbidity rates. Strategies to enhance postoperative outcomes after this operation are still needed.

Effect of Phased Implementation of Totally Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer after Previous Adoption of the Hybrid Minimally Invasive Technique: Results from a French Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated improved short-term outcomes of totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) compared with open esophagectomy (OE); however, to what extent these outcomes can be extrapolated to a national level remains debatable.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate, on a nationwide basis, the short-term outcomes of TMIE and to analyze these results within the context of previously implemented hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE).

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent a curative Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in France between 2017 and 2019 were included in this retrospective cohort study. The primary endpoint was to compare 90-day postoperative mortality (POM) between OE, HMIE, and TMIE, while secondary endpoints were defined as the rate of postoperative complications. A matched and multivariate analysis was adjusted for confounding factors.

RESULTS

Overall, 2675 patients were included (1003 OE vs. 1498 HMIE vs. 174 TMIE). In every center where TMIE was performed, HMIE had been previously adopted. The matched 90-day POM rate in the TMIE group was significantly lower compared with the OE group (2.3% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.046) but not compared with the HMIE group (2.3% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.156). There was no significant difference between TMIE and OE, or TMIE and HMIE, regarding the 30-day fistula rate (21.8% vs. 17%, p = 0.176; and 21.8% vs. 21.3%, p = 0.88, respectively). TMIE was associated with a reduced rate of pulmonary complications compared with OE (33.9% vs. 44%, p = 0.027) and HMIE (33.9% vs. 42.8%, p = 0.05). Low-volume centers were identified as a negative predictive factor for 90-day POM (odds ratio 1.89, 95% confidence interval 1.3-2.75, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

TMIE is associated with a lower 90-day POM rate compared with OE and offers reduced rates of pulmonary complications compared with OE and HMIE. After previous adoption of the HMIE technique, TMIE can be safely implemented in high-volume centers nationwide.

Surgical Therapy of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma-Current Standards and Future Perspectives

Simple Summary

Subtotal resection of the esophagus with resection of local lymph nodes is the oncological procedure of choice for advanced esophageal cancer. Reconstruction of the intestinal tract is predominantly performed with a gastric tube. Even in specialized centers, this surgical procedure is associated with a high complication but low mortality rate. Therefore, clinical research aims to develop peri- and intra-operative strategies to improve the patient related outcome.

Abstract

Transthoracic esophagectomy is currently the predominant curative treatment option for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma. The majority of carcinomas present as locally advanced tumors requiring multimodal strategies with either neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy alone. Minimally invasive, including robotic, techniques are increasingly applied with a broad spectrum of technical variations existing for the oncological resection as well as gastric reconstruction. At the present, intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy is the preferred technique of reconstruction (Ivor Lewis esophagectomy). With standardized surgical procedures, a complete resection of the primary tumor can be achieved in almost 95% of patients. Even in expert centers, postoperative morbidity remains high, with an overall complication rate of 50–60%, whereas 30- and 90-day mortality are reported to be <2% and <6%, respectively. Due to the complexity of transthoracic esophagetomy and its associated morbidity, esophageal surgery is recommended to be performed in specialized centers with an appropriate caseload yet to be defined. In order to reduce postoperative morbidity, the selection of patients, preoperative rehabilitation and postoperative fast-track concepts are feasible strategies of perioperative management. Future directives aim to further centralize esophageal services, to individualize surgical treatment for high-risk patients and to implement intraoperative imaging modalities modifying the oncological extent of resection and facilitating surgical reconstruction.

Lasting symptoms and long-term health-related quality of life after totally minimally invasive, hybrid and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy

AIM

Compared to open esophagectomy (OE), both totally minimally invasive (TMIE) and laparoscopy-assisted hybrid minimally invasive (HMIE) reduce postoperative morbidity and improve short-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We aimed to compare lasting symptoms and long-term HRQoL in an international population-based setting between patients who underwent Ivor Lewis TMIE, HMIE or OE.

METHODS

Patients who were relapse-free at least one year after TMIE, HMIE or OE for esophageal or junctional carcinoma between January 2010 and June 2016 were included. Patients completed the LASER questionnaire to assess lasting symptoms after esophagectomy and the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OG25 questionnaires to assess HRQoL. Primary endpoint was chest pain and secondary endpoints were pain from chest scars or abdominal scars, abdominal pain, fatigue and physical functioning. Differences in lasting symptoms and HRQoL were assessed with multivariable logistic and ANCOVA regression, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 362 patients were included (TMIE n = 91, HMIE n = 85, OE n = 186). Median follow-up was 3.9 years (IQR 2.8-5.4). Chest pain was reported less after TMIE compared with HMIE (adjusted OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.84), but was comparable between TMIE and OE (adjusted OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.12-1.41) and between HMIE and OE (adjusted OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.71-4.81). All secondary endpoints were comparable between TMIE, HMIE and OE. The impact of symptoms on taking medication, return to work, and performance status were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSION

Surgical technique seems to have little effect on lasting symptoms and long-term HRQoL after a median of four years after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The paradigm of the treatment of esophageal cancer has been changing with the increasing use of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in detriment of open esophagectomy (OE). We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate and compare these two techniques in terms of mortality and associated complications. The literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and U.S. National Library of Medicine Clinical Trials, considering eligible articles since 2015 to 2020. Clinical trials and observational studies were included. We presented results as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals and calculation of heterogeneity associated to the included studies. Thirty-one articles were included with a total of 34,465 participants diagnosed with esophageal adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma. MIE had tendency towards a decrease in 30- and 90- day mortality after surgery, but no statistically significative results were found. Major cardiovascular and respiratory complications were less frequent in the MIE group, despite high heterogeneity. Also, MIE might contribute to a decrease of minor post-operative complications, to an increase need of a second surgical intervention, to a greater risk for vocal cord lesions; but these results were not statistically significant. Additionally, no differences were found concerning risk of wound infection and for local and systemic recurrence. MIE may be more beneficial than OE, but these findings should be considered carefully.

Surgery by a minimally invasive approach is associated with improved textbook outcomes in oesophageal and gastric cancer

INTRODUCTION

Textbook outcome (TBO) is a composite measure of a number of peri-operative and clinical outcomes in oesophagogastric malignancy. It has previously been shown that TBOs are associated with improved overall survival in both oesophageal and gastric cancer. The influence of a minimally invasive approach (MIA) on TBO is not well defined. The purpose of this study is to validate TBO in our population, examine the influence of a MIA on achieving a TBO, and the impact of TBO on long-term survival.

METHODS

269 patients undergoing oesophagectomy and 258 patients undergoing subtotal or total gastrectomy were included in this study. Demographic, clinical and pathological differences between patients with and without a TBO were compared using univariable and multivariable analysis. Overall survival for those with and without a TBO was examined. The influence of MIA on overall survival and TBO was determined using Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing oesophagectomy and gastrectomy were significantly more likely to achieve a TBO when MIA was used (p = 0.01 and 0.001 respectively). When MIA is included as an outcome measure patients achieving a TBO show improved overall survival in both oesophageal and gastric cancer. MIA, clear resection margins and no unplanned admission to critical care are the strongest predictors of overall survival from the putative bundle of TBO parameters.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgery is associated with improved TBO. Completion of a minimally invasive approach should be considered for inclusion as a textbook parameter.

[Evidence in minimally invasive oncological surgery of the esophagus]

BACKGROUND

Thoracoabdominal esophagectomy still plays a major role in the oncological treatment for esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive procedures were developed to reduce the high rate of postoperative morbidity and mortality without negatively affecting the oncological outcome.

OBJECTIVE

What evidence supports minimally invasive oncological surgery of the esophagus? Do patients benefit from minimally invasive esophagectomy compared to an open approach? Is the reduction of surgical access trauma specifically advantageous?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Review, evaluation and critical analysis of the international literature.

RESULTS

A reduction in postoperative morbidity by decreasing surgical trauma was confirmed by three prospective randomized clinical trials, while showing at least similar oncological outcomes. Diverse retrospective analyses and meta-analyses also came to the same result.

CONCLUSION

A minimization of surgical access trauma during thoracoabdominal esophagectomy reduces postoperative morbidity compared to conventional open surgery. Recent evidence suggests that oncological outcomes are not altered depending on the surgical approach.

Vertical distance from navel as a risk factor for bowel obstruction associated with feeding jejunostomy after esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Placement of feeding jejunostomy (PFJ) during esophagectomy is an effective method to maintain adequate nutrition, but is associated with serious complications such as bowel obstruction and jejunal torsion. The purpose of the current study was to analyze the incidence, clinical features, and risk factors of bowel obstruction associated with feeding jejunostomy (BOFJ) after PFJ.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of 70 patients who underwent esophagectomy with three-field lymph node dissection for esophageal cancer and treated with PFJ between March 2013 and December 2019 in our hospital. Abdominal dissection was performed under hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) from March 2013 to March 2015, and was changed to complete laparoscopic surgery in April 2015. We compared patients with and without BOFJ, and the incidence of BOFJ was evaluated. The primary endpoint was incidence of BOFJ after PFJ.

Results

Six patients (8.5%) were diagnosed with BOFJ, all of whom were symptomatic and in the HALS group. In addition, 3 cases displayed histories of recurrent BOFJ (3, 3, and 5 times). Laparotomy was performed in all cases. Subgroup analysis of the HALS group showed a significant difference only in straight-line distance between the jejunostomy and navel as a significant pre- and perioperative factor (117 mm [101–130 mm] vs. 89 mm [51–150 mm], p < 0.001). Furthermore, dividing straight-line distance between the jejunostomy and navel into VD and HD, only VD differed significantly (107 mm [93–120 mm] vs. 79 mm [28–135 mm], p = 0.010), not HD (48 mm [40–59 mm] vs. 46 mm [22–60 mm], p = 0.199).

Conclusions

VD between the jejunostomy and navel was associated with BOFJ after PFJ with HALS esophagectomy. PFJ < 9 cm above the navel during HALS esophagectomy might effectively prevent BOFJ.

The Optimal Feeding Enterostomy Creation During Esophagectomy to Reduce the Long-Term Risk of Small Bowel Obstruction

BACKGROUND

Although feeding jejunostomy (FJ) is commonly created during esophagectomy for postoperative enteral nutrition, it can be a cause of postoperative small bowel obstruction (SBO). We introduced a technique of feeding enterostomy using the round ligament of the liver (FERL) to reduce SBO. In this study, we aimed to clarify the efficacy of FERL in reducing the postoperative SBO compared with FJ.

METHODS

We assessed 400 consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction between 2011 and 2016, before and after the introduction of FERL (FJ, n = 200; FERL, n = 200). The cumulative incidences of postoperative SBO and SBO associated with feeding enterostomy were compared between the FJ and the FERL groups.

RESULTS

Thoracoscopic and laparoscopic surgery was more frequent in the FERL group than in the FJ group (p < 0.001). The cumulative incidences of postoperative SBO and SBO associated with feeding enterostomy in the FERL group were significantly less frequent than those in the FJ group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.006, respectively). When stratifying by the abdominal surgical approach, the cumulative incidences of postoperative SBO and SBO associated with feeding enterostomy in a laparoscopic approach were less frequent in the FERL group than those in the FJ group (both p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The FERL technique can reduce the incidences of postoperative SBO and SBO associated with feeding enterostomy in patients undergoing esophagectomy.