Chest drainage after oesophageal resection: A systematic review

Comparison of central venous catheter thoracic drainage and traditional closed thoracic drainage following minimally invasive surgery for esophageal carcinoma: a retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of central venous catheter thoracic drainage (CVCTD) with traditional closed thoracic drainage (TCTD) after minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective investigation of 103 patients who underwent minimally invasive esophageal cancer surgery at our institution between January 2017 and December 2019. Among them, 44 patients underwent CVCTD, while 59 received TCTD. We compared the following outcomes between the two cohorts: drainage volume, duration of drainage, postoperative complications (including pleural effusion, pulmonary infection, atelectasis, anastomotic leakage, etc.), length of hospital stay, and postoperative pain assessment.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed between the experimental and control groups regarding postoperative thoracic drainage, the timing of postoperative tube removal, or postoperative complications. However, significant disparities were noted in the duration of postoperative hospitalization, drainage tube healing time, and pain threshold among the esophageal cancer patients in both cohorts (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

CVCTD is a secure and potent alternative to TCTD following minimally invasive surgery for esophageal carcinoma. It potentially contributes to reducing the incidence of postoperative complications while curtailing the duration of hospitalization. Additional research is warranted to substantiate these findings.

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.

State of the art of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in esophagogastric cancer surgery: the Western experience

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs provide a framework to standardize care processes and improve outcomes. The results of this multimodal and multidisciplinary approach based on actions focused on reducing physiological surgical stress in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods are beneficial in reducing morbidity and hospital stay, without increasing readmissions across different surgical settings. The implementation of ERAS in resection procedures of esophageal and gastric cancer has been challenging due to the complexity of these surgical techniques and the high risk of complications. Despite the limited evidence of ERAS in esophagectomy operations, systematic reviews and meta-analysis have confirmed a reduction of pulmonary complications and hospital stay without increasing readmissions. In gastrectomy operations, the implementation of ERAS reduces the use of nasogastric tubes and intraabdominal drains, facilitates early diet, and reduces the length of hospital stay, without increasing complications. There is, however, wide heterogeneity and absence of standardization in the number and definition of the ERAS components. The development of ERAS consensus guidelines including procedure-specific components may reduce this variability. Regardless growing evidence of the effectiveness of ERAS, the adherence rate is still low. The commitment of the multidisciplinary team and leadership is critical in the application and refinement of ERAS protocols in parallel with periodic audits. Pre- and post-habilitation methods are emerging concepts to be incorporated in ERAS protocols.

Esophagectomy-prevention of complications-tips and tricks for the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative stage

Esophagectomy still remains the mainstay of treatment for localized esophageal cancer. Many progresses have been made in the technique of esophagectomy in the last decades but the overall morbidity for this operation remains formidable. Postoperative complication and mortality rate after esophagectomy are significant; anastomotic leak has an incidence of 11,4%. The occurrence of a complication is a significant negative prognostic factor for long term survival and is also linked to longer postoperative stay, a lower quality of life, increased hospital costs. Preventing the occurrence of postoperative morbidity and reducing associated postoperative mortality rate is a major goal for surgeons experienced in resective esophageal surgery. Many details of pre, intra and postoperative care for patients undergoing esophagectomy need to be shared among the professionals taking care of these patients (oncologists, dieticians, physiotherapists, surgeons, nurses, anesthesiologists, gastroenterologists) in order to improve the short and long term clinical results.

Framework, component, and implementation of enhanced recovery pathways

The introduction of enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) has led to a considerable paradigm shift towards evidence-based, multidisciplinary perioperative care. Such pathways are now widely implemented in a variety of surgical specialties, with largely positive results. In this narrative review, we summarize the principles, components and implementation of ERPs, focusing on recent developments in the field. We also discuss ‘special cases’ in ERPs, including: surgery in frail patients; emergency procedures; and patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19).