Component analysis of enhanced recovery pathways for esophagectomy

Perioperative nutritional assessment and support in visceral surgery

Malnutrition in visceral surgery is frequent; it calls for screening prior to an operation, and its postoperative occurrence should be sought out and prevented, if possible. Organization of an individualized nutritional support strategy is based on systematic nutritional assessment and adapted to the type of surgery, the objectives being to forestall malnutrition and to reduce induced morbidity (immunosuppression, delayed wound healing, anastomotic fistulas…). Nutritional support is part and parcel of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), and has shown effectiveness in the field of visceral surgery. Oral feeding should always be privileged to the greatest possible extent, complemented if necessary by nutritional supplements. If nutritional support is required, enteral nutrition should be favored over parenteral nutrition. As for the role of pharmaco-nutrition or immuno-nutrition, it remains ill-defined. Lastly, each type of visceral surgery entails specific modifications of the anatomy of the digestive system and is liable to have specific functional consequences, which should be known and taken into account in view of effectively tailoring nutritional support.

Impact of Prophylactic Corticosteroid Use on In-hospital Mortality and Respiratory Failure After Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: Nationwide Inpatient Data Study in Japan

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of preoperative prophylactic corticosteroid use on short-term outcomes after oncologic esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that prophylactic corticosteroid use may decrease the risk of respiratory failure following esophagectomy by attenuating the perioperative systemic inflammation response. However, its effectiveness has been controversial, and its impact on mortality remains unknown.

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent oncologic esophagectomy between July 2010 and March 2019 were extracted from a Japanese nationwide inpatient database. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting, propensity score matching, and instrumental variable analyses were performed to investigate the associations between prophylactic corticosteroid use and short-term outcomes, such as in-hospital mortality and respiratory failure, adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Among 35,501 eligible patients, prophylactic corticosteroids were used in 22,620 (63.7%) patients. In-hospital mortality, respiratory failure, and severe respiratory failure occurred in 924 (2.6%), 5440 (15.3%), and 2861 (8.1%) patients, respectively. In stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses, corticosteroids were significantly associated with decreased in-hospital mortality [odds ratio (OR)=0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.69-0.93], respiratory failure (OR=0.84; 95% CI: 0.79-0.90), and severe respiratory failure (OR=0.87; 95% CI: 0.80-0.95). Corticosteroids were also associated with decreased postoperative length of stay and total hospitalization costs. The proportion of anastomotic leakage did not differ with the use of Propensity score matching and instrumental variable analysis demonstrated similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic corticosteroid use in oncologic esophagectomy was associated with lower in-hospital mortality as well as decreased respiratory failure and severe respiratory failure, suggesting a potential benefit for preoperative corticosteroid use in esophagectomy.

Identifying the role of preoperative oral/dental health care in post-esophagectomy pulmonary complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Esophageal surgery has traditionally been associated with high morbidity rates. Despite the recent advances in the field of minimally invasive surgery and the introduction of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols, post-esophagectomy morbidity, especially that attributed to the respiratory system, remains a concern. In that respect, preoperative intensification of oral care or introduction of structured oral/dental hygiene regimens may lead to tangible postoperative benefits associated with reduced morbidity (respiratory or otherwise) and length of hospital stay. A systematic literature search of the Medline, Embase, Web of Knowledge and clinicaltrials.gov databases was undertaken for studies reporting use of preoperative oral/dental hygiene improvement regimens in patients scheduled to undergo esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. After screening 796 unique studies, seven were deemed eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Pooled results indicated equivalent postoperative pneumonia rates in the oral pretreatment group and control groups (8.7 vs. 8.5%, respectively); however, the odds for developing pneumonia were reduced by 50% in the pretreatment group (odds ratio 0.5, 95% C.I. 0.37 to 0.69, P < 0.001). No statistically significant difference was detected in the anastomotic leak (odds ratio 0.93, 95% C.I. 0.38 to 2.24, P = 0.87) and length of stay outcomes (mean difference 0.63, 95% C.I. -3.22 to 4.47, P = 0.75). Oral/dental pretreatment reduces the odds for developing post-esophagectomy pneumonia. This finding should be cautiously interpreted given the significant limitations inherent in this meta-analysis. Further investigation via well-designed clinical trials is thus warranted before implementation in routine practice can be recommended.

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.

Analysis of Compliance with Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocol for Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

ERAS guidelines have provided an effective recovery approach for esophagectomy. This study aimed to identify the relationship between the length of hospital stay (LOS) and compliance with clinical benchmarks of an established institutional ERAS program.

METHODS

A single-center prospective database of esophageal cancer patients was retrospectively analyzed between January 2016 and January 2020. All patients underwent surgery within a standardized ERAS pathway for esophagectomy. Compliance with individual ERAS benchmarks and postoperative outcomes were evaluated according to patient's LOS; accelerated (≤ 6 days, AR), targeted (7-8 days, TR), and delayed recovery (≥ 9 days, DR).

RESULTS

The study included 100 consecutive patients undergoing esophagectomy with a median LOS of 7 (3.8-40.8) days, and a 30-day readmission rate of 12.6%. LOS was not affected by comorbidities, tumor type or stage, neoadjuvant therapy, operative approach or anastomotic leak. Postoperative complications were 49.5%, and 90-day mortality was 3.8%. AR, TR, and DL were achieved by 45%, 31%, and 24% of patients, respectively. Postoperative morbidity differed significantly among groups, impacting LOS (p < 0.001). Overall compliance with ERAS protocol was 82.7% and adherence to specific benchmarks was initially (< 48 h) high, but significantly affected by postoperative complications afterwards.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to recovery benchmarks in patients undergoing esophagectomy is most commonly impacted by postoperative complications. In esophageal cancer surgery, the adherence to ERAS benchmarks after esophagectomy should be regularly audited. Modification to ERAS protocols to increase application in patients with complications should be considered.

Is there a relationship between two different anesthetic methods and postoperative length of stay during radical resection of malignant esophageal tumors in China?: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Data providing a relationship between the anesthetic method and postoperative length of stay (PLOS) is limited. We aimed to investigate whether general anesthesia alone or combined with epidural anesthesia might affect perioperative risk factors and PLOS for patients undergoing radical resection of malignant esophageal tumors.

METHODS

The study retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 680 patients who underwent a radical esophageal malignant tumor resection in a Chinese hospital from January 01, 2010, to December 31, 2020. The primary outcome measure was PLOS, and the secondary outcome was perioperative risk-related parameters that affect PLOS. The independent variable was the type of anesthesia: general anesthesia (GA) or combined epidural-general anesthesia (E-GA). The dependent variable was PLOS. We conducted univariate and multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching to compare the relationships of GA and E-GA with PLOS and identify the perioperative risk factors for PLOS. In this cohort study, the confounders included sociodemographic data, preoperative chemotherapy, coexisting diseases, laboratory parameters, intraoperative variables, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

In all patients, the average PLOS was 19.85 ± 12.60 days. There was no significant difference in PLOS between the GA group and the E-GA group either before or after propensity score matching (20.01 days ± 14.90 days vs. 19.79 days ± 11.57 days, P = 0.094, 18.09 ± 9.71 days vs. 19.39 ± 10.75 days, P = 0.145). The significant risk factors for increased PLOS were lung infection (β = 3.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.54-5.52), anastomotic leakage (β = 25.73, 95% CI: 22.11-29.34), and surgical site infection (β = 9.39, 95% CI: 4.10-14.68) by multivariate regression analysis. Subgroup analysis revealed a stronger association between PLOS and vasoactive drug use, blood transfusions, and open esophagectomy. The results remained essentially the same (stable and reliable) after subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is no significant association between the type of anesthesia(GA or E-GA) and PLOS for patients undergoing radical esophageal malignant tumor resection, an association between PLOS and lung infection, anastomotic leakage, and surgical site infection was determined by multivariate regression analysis. A larger sample future study design may verify our results.

Guide to Enhanced Recovery for Cancer Patients Undergoing Surgery: ERAS and Oesophagectomy

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols are widely used in oesophageal cancer surgery. Multiple studies have demonstrated that ERAS protocols are associated with a shorter length of stay and a reduction in the incidence of post-operative complications after oesophagectomy. However, there is substantial heterogeneity in the content of ERAS protocols and the delivery of these pathways can be challenging. This paper discusses the key recommendations for ERAS protocols in oesophageal cancer surgery and the barriers and facilitating factors for their successful implementation.

Application of ERAS protocol in esophagectomy: a national survey among Italian centers performing esophageal surgery

The application of enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines for esophageal surgery in different units remains unclear. This survey intended to investigate how such protocol is applied among Italian esophageal surgery units. A survey with 40 questions was mailed to Italian centers that performed at least 10 esophagectomies per year. It included questions about the type of hospital and unit and pre-, intra- and post-operative items. Difficulties encountered were investigated. Thirteen (65%) centers answered the survey, and all met the minimal safety requirements, e.g., the presence of intensive care units and 24-h on-call operative endoscopy and radiology facilities. Fifty percent of esophagectomies with a minimally invasive approach were performed in 84.6% of the centers. Regarding pre-operative items, the highest scores were for the application of nutritional support, dysphagia palliation and presence of a multidisciplinary tumor board, whereas the lowest score was for the use of immunonutrition. Regarding intra-operative items, hypothermia prevention and the use of goal-directed fluid therapy and volatile anesthesia were diffusely adopted, whereas the rate of using abdominal drains was high. Regarding post-operative items, nausea prevention, multimodal analgesia and early mobilization were applied frequently, whereas the use of nasogastric tubes and regular transfer to intensive care units was diffused. The primary barriers in enhanced recovery after surgery protocol application were resistance and a lack of paramedic personnel. This survey's results highlight the efforts undertaken by several centers to apply enhanced recovery after surgery philosophy and in this regard, demonstrate a good standing in Italy.

Predicting Delayed Complications After Esophagectomy in the Current Era of Early Discharge and Enhanced Recovery

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery protocols after esophagectomy aim to discharge patients by day 7. A small risk of delayed complications exists. We aimed to assess whether C-reactive protein (CRP) levels on day 7 could help predict delayed complications and assist safe discharge.

METHODS

All consecutive esophagectomies over 3 years were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorized on day 7 into (1) those clinically unsafe for discharge; (2) those clinically safe for discharge; and (3) those considered safe for discharge but develop a delayed complication. CRP level on day 7 and the trend in CRP levels between days 3 and 7 were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients underwent esophagectomy, of which 64 patients (46%) had at least one complication. On day 7, 62 (44%) patients were considered clinically unsafe for discharge; 74 (53%) were considered safe for discharge; and 4 (3%) were safe but developed a delayed complication. No patient with delayed complication had a day 7 CRP level < 84 mg/L. CRP trend did not help predict delayed complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The actual CRP level on day 7 after esophagectomy, rather than the trend, can predict delayed complications. Early discharge after esophagectomy should be desisted if the clinical picture is better than the actual blood results.

Completely Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Hybrid Esophagectomy for Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Junctional Cancer: Clinical and Short-Term Oncological Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery for resectable esophageal and gastroesophageal junctional (GEJ) cancer significantly reduces morbidity when compared with open surgery, as is evident from published landmark trials. Comparison of outcomes between hybrid esophagectomy (HE) and completely minimally invasive esophagectomy (CMIE) remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to ascertain whether CMIE is associated with less postoperative complications compared with HE without oncological compromise.

METHODS

All consecutive two-stage HEs and CMIEs performed between 2016 and 2018 were included. All procedures were performed with an intrathoracic anastomosis. Primary clinical outcomes were pulmonary infective and overall complications within 30 days of surgery, while primary oncological outcomes included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at both 6 months and to date. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative variables and postoperative clinical parameters.

RESULTS

Overall, 98 patients had CMIEs and 49 patients had HEs. There were no baseline differences between the two groups. Thirty-day postoperative pulmonary infection rates were lower in the CMIE group compared with the HE group (12.2% vs. 28.6%; p = 0.014), and 30-day overall postoperative complication rates were also lower following CMIE (35.7% vs. 59.2%; p = 0.007). OS and DFS were similar between the two groups at 6 months (p = 0.201 and p = 0.109, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

CMIE is associated with less pulmonary infective and overall postoperative complications compared with HE for resectable esophageal and GEJ cancer. No intergroup difference was observed regarding short-term survival and cancer recurrence in patients undergoing CMIE and HE. A randomized controlled trial comparing the two operative approaches is required to validate these findings.

Multidisciplinary treatment of esophageal cancer: The role of active surveillance after neoadjuvant chemoradiation

The optimal treatment of esophageal cancer is still controversial. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by radical esophagectomy is a standard treatment. Morbidity after esophagectomy however is still considerable and has an impact on patients' quality of life. Given a pathologic complete response rate of approximately 30% in patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery, active surveillance has been introduced as a new alternative approach. Active surveillance involves regular clinical response evaluations in patients after neoadjuvant therapy to detect residual or recurrent disease. As long as there is no suspicion of disease activity, surgery is withheld. Esophagectomy is reserved for patients presenting with an incomplete response or resectable recurrent disease. Active surveillance after neoadjuvant treatment has been previously applied in other types of malignancy with encouraging results. This paper discusses its role in esophageal cancer.

Enhanced recovery pathways vs standard care pathways in esophageal cancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols vs standard care pathways after esophagectomy for malignancy have gained wide popularity among surgeons. However, the current literature is still lacking level-I evidence to show a clear superiority of one approach. The present study is a detailed systematic review and meta-analysis of the published trials. A systematic review of literature databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized, prospective, comparative studies between January 1990 and September 2019, comparing ERAS pathway group with standard care for esophageal resection for esophageal cancer. Mean difference (MD) for continuous variables and odds ratio (OR) or risk difference (RD) for dichotomous variables with 95% confidence interval (CI) were used. Between-study heterogeneity was evaluated. Eight studies with a total of 1133 patients were included. Hospital stay [Standard mean difference (Std. MD) = - 1.92, 95% CI - 2.78, - 1.06, P < 0.0001], overall morbidity (OR 0.68, CI 0.49, 0.96, P = 0.03), pulmonary complications (OR 0.45, CI 0.31, 0.65, P < 0.0001), anastomotic leak rate (OR 0.37, CI 0.18, 0.74, P = 0.005), time to first flatus and defecation (Std. MD = -5.01, CI - 9.53, - 0.49, P = 0.03), (Std. MD = - 1.36, CI - 1.78, - 0.94, P < 0.00001) and total hospital cost (Std. MD = - 1.62, CI - 2.24, - 1.01, P < 0.00001) favored the ERAS group. Patients who undergo ERAS have a clear benefit over the standard care protocol. However, existing protocols in different centers are followed by great variability, while the evaluated parameters suffer from significant heterogeneity. A well-formulated, standardized protocol should be standard-of-care at all centers.

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol to promote recovery following esophageal cancer resection

Esophageal cancer surgery, comprising esophagectomy with radical lymphadenectomy, is a complex procedure associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol which aims to improve perioperative care, minimize complications, and accelerate recovery is showing promise for achieving better perioperative outcomes. ERAS is a multimodal approach that has been reported to shorten the length of hospital stay, reduce surgical stress response, decrease morbidity, and expedite recovery. While ERAS components straddle preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods, they need to be seen in continuum and not as isolated elements. In this review, we elaborate on the components of an ERAS protocol after esophagectomy including preoperative nutrition, prehabilitation, counselling, smoking and alcohol cessation, cardiopulmonary evaluation, surgical technique, anaesthetic management, intra- and postoperative fluid management and pain relief, mobilization and physiotherapy, enteral and oral feeding, removal of drains, and several other components. We also share our own institutional protocol for ERAS following esophageal resections.

Routine placement of feeding jejunostomy tube during esophagectomy increases postoperative complications and does not improve postoperative malnutrition

Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is a highly invasive procedure, and a feeding jejunostomy tube (FJT) is routinely placed to ensure adequate enteral nutrition. However, the effect of perioperative short-term FJT placement remains controversial, and the aim of this study was to assess risks and benefits of routine FJT placement during esophagectomy and to determine parameters that can identify patients needing long-term FJT. This retrospective study included 393 patients who had undergone esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction via the posterior mediastinal route at the Kobe University Hospital and the Hyogo Cancer Center between April 2010 and December 2017. Propensity score matching was used to identify matched patients (139 per group) in the FJT and no-FJT groups. The incidence of postoperative complications and weight loss (3 months post-procedure) was compared in the matched cohort and significant risk factors predicting the need for long-term FJT placement in the whole cohort were identified. In the matched cohort, while weight loss was not different between the FJT and no-FJT groups (11% vs. 10%), the incidence of small bowel obstruction in the FJT group (11.5%) was significantly higher than that in the no-FJT group (0%). Multivariate analysis revealed that age (≥75 years), preoperative therapy, anastomosis leakage, and pulmonary complications were independent risk factors for long-term FJT placement. Routine placement of an FJT during esophagectomy increases small bowel obstruction and does not result in better nutritional status, suggesting that selective long-term FJT placement in high-risk patients should be considered.

Outcomes of nutritional jejunostomy in the curative treatment of esophageal cancer

Substantial weight loss and eating problems are common before and after esophagectomy for cancer. The use of jejunostomy might prevent postoperative weight loss, but studies evaluating other outcomes are scarce. This study aims to assess the influence of jejunostomy on postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQOL), complications, reoperation, hospital stay, and survival. This prospective and population-based cohort study included all patients operated on for esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer in Sweden in 2001-2005 with follow-up until 31st December 2016. Data regarding patient and tumor characteristics and treatment were prospectively collected. Multivariable logistic regression provided odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), whereas Cox regression provided hazard ratios with 95% CI. All risk estimates were adjusted for age, sex, tumor histology, stage, comorbidity, surgical approach, neoadjuvant therapy, and body mass index and weight loss at baseline. Among 397 patients, 181 (46%) received a jejunostomy during surgery. The use of jejunostomy did not influence the HRQOL at 6 months or 3 years after treatment. Jejunostomy users had no statistically significantly increased risk of postoperative complications (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.86-1.87) or reoperation (OR 1.70; 95% CI 0.88-3.28). Intensive unit care and length of hospital stay was the same independent of the use of jejunostomy. The all-cause mortality was not increased in the jejunostomy group (HR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.74-1.07). This study indicates that jejunostomy does not influence postoperative HRQOL, complications, or survival after esophageal cancer surgery, it can be considered a safe method for early enteral nutrition after esophageal cancer surgery but benefits for the patients need further investigations.

Jejunostomy or nasojejunal tube after esophagectomy: a review of the literature

Patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer are a difficult to treat group of patients. At diagnosis they will present some degree of malnutrition in up to 80% and the causes are from multifactorial origin: the inability of food ingestion, advanced age, taste disturbances, and morbidity related to neoadjuvant treatment. In order to restaure the nutritional status, enteral nutritional support is preferable to parenteral support because of the risks of septic complications associated with venous catheters. During the postoperative period, the oral route is often inaccessible in these patients due to swallowing disorders and eventually mechanical ventilation, and if possible, often it does not provide sufficient caloric amounts for postoperative energy balance. For these reasons, it is usually recommended additional nutritional support. There are few studies in the literature that specifically address which is the most adequate route for enteral nutrition in patients undergoing esophagectomy. Nasojejunal catheters present a higher incidence of local complications, such as displacement and occlusion, whereas jejunostomy is more associated with reinterventions for the treatment of complications secondary to extravasation. Although there is weak evidence in the literature and a lack of randomized, prospective and multicenter studies evaluating the best enteral nutrition route in the postoperative period of esophagectomy, the use of the nasoenteric catheter seems to be adequate due to its simplicity of positioning and low rates of severe complications. In this paper a review is performed of the evidence about this subject.

Preoperative nutritional optimization of esophageal cancer patients

Optimization of the nutritional and metabolic state prior to major surgery leads to improved surgical outcomes and is increasingly seen as an important part of oncology disease management. For locally advanced esophageal cancer the treatment is multimodal, including neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or perioperative chemotherapy in combination with esophageal resection. Patients undergoing such a multimodal treatment have a higher risk for progressive decline in their nutritional status. Preoperative malnutrition and loss of skeletal muscle mass has been reported to correlate with unfavorable outcomes in patients who undergo esophageal cancer surgery. Decline in nutritional status is most likely caused by insufficient nutritional intake, reduced physical activity, systemic inflammation and the effects of anticancer therapy. To ensure an optimal nutritional status prior to surgery, it is key to assess the nutritional status in all preoperative esophageal cancer patients, preferable early in the treatment trajectory, and to apply nutritional interventions accordingly. Nutritional management of esophageal cancer can be challenging, the optimal nutritional therapy is still under debate, and warrants more nutritional scientific research. In this review, the most recent findings regarding preoperative nutrition associated with outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer will be explored.

Benchmark values for transthoracic esophagectomy are not set as the defined "best possible"-a validation study

Background

Recently, benchmark values for low-comorbidity patients at high-volume centers were set to define "best achievable results" for transthoracic minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). We aimed to validate suggested benchmark values by comparing them to outcomes at a medium-volume center in Finland.

Methods

All MIEs (n=82) performed at Central Finland Central Hospital between September 2012 and November 2017 including 75 totally MIE and 7 hybrid procedures. The aim of the study was to compare the results to previously suggested benchmark parameters for postoperative morbidity measured with the Clavien-Dindo classification and comprehensive complication index. Target benchmark parameters were ≤55.7% for any complications, ≤30.8% for major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3a), ≤40.8% for 30-day and ≤42.8% for 90-day comprehensive complication index, ≤20% for anastomosis leak, ≤31.6% for pulmonary complications, ≤1.0% for 30-day mortality and ≤4.6% for 90-day mortality.

Results

Compared with benchmark patients, our patients were older (median 68 vs. 58 years), with more comorbidities. All parameters measuring complications showed better results in our study than benchmark values. Median intensive care unit stay of 1 (IQR, 1-1) and hospital stay of 9 (IQR, 9-12) days were also shorter. At least 1 complication developed in 45.1%, and 6.1% faced major morbidity. Median (IQR) comprehensive complication index for both 30 and 90 days was 0 (IQR, 0-20.9 days). Anastomosis leak and pulmonary complications were observed in 3.7% and 22.0%, respectively. The 30- and 90-day mortality was 1.2% (1/82).

Conclusions

Benchmark values assessing postoperative morbidity after MIE do not represent the defined "best achievable" results after completed learning curves.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs for esophagectomy protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Esophageal cancer is one of the worst malignant digestive neoplasms with poor treatment outcomes. Esophagectomy plays an important role and offers a potential curable chance to these patients. However, esophagectomy with radical lymphadenectomy is known as one of the most invasive digestive surgeries which are associated with high morbidity and mortality. The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol is a patient-centered, surgeon-led system combining anesthesia, nursing, nutrition, and psychology, which is designed for reducing complications, promoting recovery, and improving treatment outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis is aiming at how beneficial, and to what extent ERAS really will be.

METHODS

A systematic literature search will be performed through January 2018 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar for relevant articles published in any language. Randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, and propensity-matched comparative studies will be included. All meta-analyses will be performed using Review Manager software. The quality of the studies will be evaluated using the guidelines listed in the Cochrane Handbook. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statements will be followed until the findings of the systematic review and meta-analysis are reported.

RESULTS

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

CONCLUSION

Our study will draw an objective conclusion of the comparisons between ERAS and conventional care in aspects of perioperative outcomes and provide level I evidences for clinical decision makings.