Comparison of perioperative outcomes following open versus minimally invasive Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy at a single, high-volume centre

Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy

Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy is a technically demanding operation that requires an experienced surgeon, assistant, and anesthesiologist. The preoperative workup should focus on the extent of disease and extent of resection required, as well as the cardiopulmonary fitness of the patient. Surgical outcomes show decreased postoperative pain, decreased morbidity largely due to a reduction in respiratory complications, and decreased length of stay. Quality metrics and 5-year overall survival are equivalent to traditional open esophagectomy.

Trends in Distal Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer Care: The Dutch Nationwide Ivory Study

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the nationwide trends in care and accompanied postoperative outcomes for patients with distal esophageal and gastro-esophageal junction cancer.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The introduction of transthoracic esophagectomy, minimally invasive surgery, and neo-adjuvant chemo(radio)therapy changed care for patients with esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Patients after elective transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy for distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction carcinoma in the Netherlands between 2007-2016 were included. The primary aim was to evaluate trends in both care and postoperative outcomes for the included patients. Additionally, postoperative outcomes after transthoracic and tran-shiatal esophagectomy were compared, stratified by time periods.

RESULTS

Among 4712 patients included, 74% had distal esophageal tumors and 87% had adenocarcinomas. Between 2007 and 2016, the proportion of transthoracic esophagectomy increased from 41% to 81%, and neo-adjuvant treatment and minimally invasive esophagectomy increased from 31% to 96%, and from 7% to 80%, respectively. Over this 10-year period, postoperative outcomes improved: postoperative morbidity decreased from 66.6% to 61.8% ( P = 0.001), R0 resection rate increased from 90.0% to 96.5% (P <0.001), median lymph node harvest increased from 15 to 19 ( P <0.001), and median survival increased from 35 to 41 months ( P = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

In this nationwide cohort, a transition towards more neo-adju-vant treatment, transthoracic esophagectomy and minimally invasive surgery was observed over a 10-year period, accompanied by decreased postoperative morbidity, improved surgical radicality and lymph node harvest, and improved survival.

Comparison of pulmonary function changes between patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy prior to minimally invasive esophagectomy: a randomized and controlled trial

PURPOSE

Adequate pulmonary function is important for patients undergoing surgical resection of esophageal cancer, especially those that received neoadjuvant therapy. However, it is unknown if pre-operative radiation affects pulmonary function differently compared to chemotherapy. The purpose of this study was to compare changes in pulmonary function between patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy.

METHODS

Between March 2017 and March 2018, esophageal cancer patients requiring neoadjuvant therapy were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy (CT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) before MIE. All patients received pulmonary function testing before and after the neoadjuvant therapy. Changes in pulmonary function, operative data, and pulmonary complications were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 71 patients were randomized and underwent MIE after receiving CT (n = 34) or CRT (n = 37). Baseline clinical characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups. The CRT group experienced a greater decrease of forced expiratory volume at 1 s (FEV₁) (2.66 to 2.18 L, p = 0.023) and diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide divided by the mean alveolar volume (DLCO/Va) (17.3%, p < 0.001) than the CT group (FEV₁ 2.53 to 2.41 L; DLCO/Va 4.8%). The incidence of pulmonary complications was higher in the CRT group (13.51 vs. 8.82%), but the difference was not significant (p = 0.532).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative CRT affects pulmonary function more than CT alone, but does not increase the risk of pulmonary complications in patients undergoing MIE.

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.

End-to-side circular stapled versus side-to-side linear stapled intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis following minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy: comparison of short-term outcomes

PURPOSE

The search for the optimal procedure for creation of a safe gastroesophageal intrathoracic anastomosis with a lower risk of leakage in totally minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (TMIIL) is ongoing. In the present study, we compared the outcomes of end-to-side (with circular stapler [CS]) and side-to-side (with linear stapler [LS]) techniques for intrathoracic anastomosis during TMIIL performed in 2 European high-volume centers for upper gastrointestinal surgery. A propensity score method was used to compare the CS and LS groups.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated patients with lower esophageal cancer or Siewert type 1 or 2 esophagogastric junction carcinoma who underwent a planned TMIIL esophagectomy, performed from January 2017 to September 2020. The anastomosis was created by a semi-mechanical technique using a LS in one center and by a mechanical technique using a CS in the other center. General features, operative techniques, pathology data, and short-term outcomes were analyzed. Statistical evaluations were performed on the whole cohort, stratifying the analyses by risk strata factors identified with the propensity scores, and on a subgroup of patients matched by propensity score. The primary endpoint of the study was the rate of anastomotic leakage in the two groups. Secondary endpoints included rates of anastomotic stricture and overall postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Considering the whole population, 256 patients were included; of those, 220 received the anastomosis with a circular stapler (CS group), and 36 received the anastomosis with a linear stapler (LS group). No significant differences by group in terms of sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, and type of neoplasm were showed. The rate of anastomotic leakage did not differ in the two groups (9.6% CS vs. 5.6% LS, p = 0.438), as well as the rate of anastomotic stricture in the 3-month follow-up (0.9% CS vs. 2.8% LS, p = 0.367). The rate of chyle leakage and of pulmonary, cardiac, and infective complications was not significantly different in the groups. After propensity score matching, 72 patients were included in the analysis. The 2 obtained propensity score matched groups did not differ for any of the clinical and pathologic variables considered for the analysis, resulting in well-balanced cohorts. The results obtained on the whole population were confirmed in the matched groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study suggest that both techniques for esophagogastric anastomosis during TMIIL are feasible, safe, and effective, with comparable rates of postoperative anastomotic leakage and stricture.

Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging for prevention of anastomotic leak in totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging is an emerging technology that might help decreasing anastomotic leakage (AL) rates. The aim of this study was to determine the usefulness of ICG fluorescence imaging for the prevention of AL after minimally invasive esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of the MEDLINE and Cochrane databases was performed to identify all articles on totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Studies were then divided into two groups based on the use or not of ICG for perfusion assessment. Primary outcome was anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes included operative time, ICG-related adverse reactions, and mortality rate. A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the overall weighted proportion and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for main outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 3,171 patients were included for analysis: 381 (12%) with intraoperative ICG fluorescence imaging and 2,790 (88%) without ICG. Mean patients' age and proportion of males were similar between groups. Mean operative time was also similar between both groups (ICG: 354.8 vs. No-ICG: 354.1 minutes, P = 0.52). Mean ICG dose was 12 mg (5-21 mg). No ICG-related adverse reactions were reported. AL rate was 9% (95% CI, 5-17%) and 9% (95% CI, 7-12%) in the ICG and No-ICG groups, respectively. The risk of AL was similar between groups (odds ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.53-1.28, P = 0.45). Mortality was 3% (95% CI, 1-9%) in patients with ICG and 2% (95% CI, 2-3%) in those without ICG. Median length of hospital stay was also similar between groups (ICG: 13.6 vs. No-ICG: 11.2 days, P = 0.29).

CONCLUSION

The use of ICG fluorescence imaging for perfusion assessment does not seem to reduce AL rates in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis.

Increasing Use of PET-CT, Neoadjuvant Treatment, Minimally Invasive Approach and Surgical Radicality in Esophageal Cancer Surgery are Associated with Improved Short- and Long-term Outcomes in Real-World Setting

BACKGROUND

Guideline adherence has improved outcomes in several cancers. Our aim was to evaluate whether the rate of PET-CT, neoadjuvant treatment, minimally invasive approach, and surgical radicality, suggested also by recent guidelines, would improve short- and long-term operative outcomes in esophageal cancer in real-world setting.

METHODS

This retrospective study in two Finnish Hospitals between 2010 and 2020 included 296 esophageal cancer patients. Grouping factors based on four factors with annual cut-offs by center were 90% rate in PET-CT-based staging, 70% in neoadjuvant therapy usage, 80% in minimally invasive approach, and 20 in annual mean lymph node yield. If none of factors were reached, all patients operated in that year were classified into group 1. With one to three cut-offs reached, grouping was into group 2. If all annual cut-offs were reached, patients were classified into group 3. Primary end points were major complication rate and overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival.

RESULTS

Major complication rate decreased significantly from 38.2% in group 1 (p < 0.001) and 34.2% in group 2 (p < 0.001) to 10.2% in group 3. Overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates between groups 1-3 were 77.9% vs. 80.3% vs. 94.2% (p = 0.004), 51.5% vs. 51.1% vs. 67.3% (p = 0.022), and 44.1% vs. 47.4% vs. 55.5% (p = 0.065), respectively. Adjusted 5-year overall mortality was reduced significantly in group 3 compared to group 1 (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.28-0.75).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that increasing rate of PET-CT, neoadjuvant treatment, minimally invasive surgery, and surgical radicality improves short- and long-term outcomes in operated esophageal cancer patients.

Advantages of McKeown minimally invasive oesophagectomy for the treatment of oesophageal cancer: propensity score matching analysis of 169 cases

BACKGROUND

Oesophagectomy, the gold standard for oesophageal cancer treatment, causes significantly high morbidity and mortality. McKeown minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIE) is preferred for treating oesophageal malignancies; however, limited studies with large sample sizes focusing on the surgical and oncological outcomes of this procedure have been reported. We aimed to compare the clinical safety and efficacy of McKeown MIE with those of open oesophagectomy (OE).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Overall, 338 oesophageal cancer patients matched by gender, age, location, size, and T and N stages (McKeown MIE: 169 vs OE: 169) were analysed. The clinicopathologic features, operational factors, postoperative complications, and prognoses were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

McKeown MIE resulted in less bleeding (200 mL vs 300 mL, p<0.01), longer operation time (335.0 h vs 240.0 h, p<0.01), and higher number of harvested lymph nodes (22 vs 9, p<0.01) than OE did. Although the rate of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury in the two groups was not significantly different, incidence of anastomotic leakage (8 vs 24, p=0.003) was significantly lower in the McKeown MIE group. In addition, patients who underwent McKeown MIE had higher 5-year overall survival than those who underwent OE (69.9% vs 40.4%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

McKeown MIE is proved to be feasible and safe to achieve better surgical and oncological outcomes for oesophageal cancer compared with OE.

Comparative analysis of long-term oncologic outcomes for minimally invasive and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: a propensity score matched observational study

BACKGROUND

Locally advanced esophageal carcinoma is typically treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy (trimodality therapy). We compared the long-term oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (M-ILE) cohort with a propensity score weighted cohort of open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (O-ILE) cases after trimodality therapy.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of 223 patients diagnosed with esophageal carcinoma who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by M-ILE or O-ILE from April 2009 to February 2019. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjustment was used to balance the baseline characteristics between study groups. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were calculated for overall survival and recurrence-free survival comparing the two groups. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine predictive variables for overall and recurrence-free survival.

RESULTS

The IPTW cohort included patients with esophageal carcinoma who underwent M-ILE (n = 142) or O-ILE (n = 68). The overall rate of postoperative adverse events was not significantly different after IPTW adjustment between the O-ILE and M-ILE trimodality groups (53.4% vs. 39.2%, p = 0.089). The 3-year overall survival (OS) for the M-ILE group was 59.4% (95% CI: 49.8-67.8) compared to 55.7% (95% CI: 39.2-69.4) for the O-ILE group (p = 0.670). The 3-year recurrence-free survival for the M-ILE group was 59.9% (95% CI: 50.2-68.2) compared to 61.6% (95% CI: 41.9-76.3) for the O-ILE group (p = 0.357). A complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation was significantly predictive of improved OS and RFS.

CONCLUSION

The overall and recurrence-free survival rates for M-ILE were not significantly different from O-ILE for esophageal carcinoma after trimodality therapy. Complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation was predictive of improved overall and recurrence- free survival.

Optimal surgery for esophagogastric junctional cancer

Esophagogastric junctional cancer is classified into three categories according to the Siewert classification, which reflects the epidemiological and biological characteristics. Therapeutic strategies have been evaluated according to the three Siewert types. There is a consensus that types I and III should be treated as esophageal cancer and gastric cancer, respectively. On the other hand, type II is often described as true cardiac cancer, which has different clinicopathological features from the other types. Thus, there is no consensus on the surgical management of type II esophagogastric junctional cancer. The optimal surgical management should focus on the principles of cancer surgery, which take into consideration oncological curability, including an appropriate resection margin, adequate lymphadenectomy, and minimization of postoperative complications. In this review, we evaluate the current relevant literature and evidence, on the surgical treatment of esophagogastric junctional cancer, focusing on type II. Esophagectomy with a thoracic approach has the advantage of ensuring a sufficient proximal resection margin and adequate mediastinal lymphadenectomy. However, the oncological benefit is offset by a high incidence of postoperative complications. Minimally invasive esophagectomy could be a possible solution to reduce complications and improve long-term outcomes. Further development of surgical treatments for Siewert type II is required to improve the outcomes. Furthermore, the surgical team should have expertise in both gastric cancer and esophageal cancer treatment, or patients should be managed with close collaboration between thoracic surgeons and gastric cancer surgeons.

Development and validation of a novel nomogram for postoperative pulmonary complications following minimally invasive esophageal cancer surgery

Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) are the most common complications following minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and can be associated with adverse outcomes. This study aims to construct a nomogram based on clinical factors to predict PPCs and investigate related early outcomes. Clinical data of 969 consecutive patients receiving MIE were retrospectively collected. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to select independent predictors. Using independent predictors to develop a nomogram and using a bootstrap-resampling approach to conduct internal verification. Early outcomes of PPCs were analyzed. The incidence of PPCs following MIE was 39.6% (384 out of 969). In multivariate analysis, older age (Odds ratio (OR) 1.034, P < 0.001), higher body mass index (OR 0.993, P = 0.003), heavy smoking (OR 1.396, P = 0.027), FEV₁/FVC < 105% (OR 1.958, P < 0.001), chemoradiotherapy (OR 0.653, P = 0.039), estimated blood loss ≥ 400 mL (OR 2.582, P = 0.018), general anesthesia (vs Combined thoracic paravertebral blockade, OR 1.578, P = 0.014), operative time ≥ 240 min (OR 1.388, P = 0.027), squamous cell carcinoma (OR 2.099, P = 0.036) and conversion to thoracotomy (OR 2.820, P = 0.026) were independent predictors for PPCs. These ten independent predictors were used to develop a nomogram, with concordance index (C index) value of 0.662 and good calibration. After internal validation, similarly good calibration and discrimination (C index, 0.654; 95% CI 0.614-0.690) were observed. Patients developing PPCs had higher rates of anastomotic leakage, reoperation, ICU and 30-day readmissions, and prolonged ICU and hospital stays (P < 0.05). Our study identified ten predictors for PPCs, which were associated with poor early outcomes. The proposed nomogram can be a useful tool to identify patients at high risk of PPCs after MIE.

Does thoracoscopic esophagectomy really reduce post-operative pneumonia in all cases?

It has been said that "thoracoscopy suppresses the occurrence of pneumonia in comparison to thoracotomy", but does it reflect real clinical practice? To resolve this clinical question, we compared the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies from limited institutes (CLIs) in which a large number of high-volume centers were the main participants to those of retrospective cohort studies based on nationwide databases (CNDs) in which both high-volume centers and low-volume hospitals participated. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the short-term outcomes of thoracoscopic to open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in the three above-mentioned research formats. In total, 43 studies with 21,057 patients, which included 1 RCT with 115 patients, 38 CLIs with 6,126 patients and 4 CNDs with 14,816 patients, were selected. Pneumonia was one of the most important complications. Although significant superiority in thoracoscopic esophagectomy was observed in RCTs (p = 0.005) and CLIs (p = 0.003), no such difference was seen in findings using nationwide databases (p = 0.69). In conclusion, unlike RCTs and CLIs, CNDs did not show the superiority of thoracoscopic surgery in terms of post-operative pneumonia. RCTs and CLIs were predominantly performed by high-volume hospitals, while CNDs were often performed by low-volume hospitals. In actual clinical practice including various types of hospitals, the superiority of thoracoscopic over open esophagectomy regarding the incidence of pneumonia may, therefore, decrease.

Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-thoracoscopic technique. Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence comparing conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (CMIE) via laparoscopy and thoracoscopy with robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is scarce. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare surgical outcomes after CMIE and RAMIE with an intrathoracic anastomosis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify original articles analyzing outcomes after CMIE and RAMIE. Main surgical outcomes included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, anastomotic leak rates, pneumonia, overall morbidity, length of stay (LOS), and 30-day mortality. Oncologic outcomes included lymph node yield and R0 resections rates. A meta-analysis of proportions and linear regression models were used to assess the effect of each procedure on the different outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 6,249 patients were included for analysis; 5,275 (84%) underwent CMIE and 974 (16%) RAMIE. Robotic esophagectomy had longer operative time and less intraoperative blood loss. Anastomotic leakage rates were similar with both approaches. Patients undergoing RAMIE had significantly lower rates of postoperative pneumonia (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.61, P < .0001) and overall morbidity (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58-0.79, P < .0001). Median LOS was similar in both procedures (RAMIE: 12.1 versus CMIE: 11.9 days, P = .64). Similar mortality rates were found after RAMIE and CMIE (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34-1.38, P = .29). Lymph node yield was similar in both procedures, but RAMIE was associated with higher rates of R0 resection (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.53-5.26, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing robotic esophagectomy have less intraoperative blood loss, lower rates of postoperative pneumonia, reduced overall morbidity, and higher rates of R0 resections, as compared with those undergoing a laparoscopic-thoracoscopic esophageal resection.

Hybrid robotic versus hybrid laparoscopic Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy: a case-matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

Robotic-assisted oesophagectomy for cancer has been increasingly employed worldwide; however, the benefits of this technique compared to conventional minimally invasive oesophagectomy are unclear. Since 2016, hybrid robotic minimally invasive oesophagectomy (R-HMIE) has increasingly replaced hybrid laparoscopic minimally invasive oesophagectomy (HMIE) as the standard of care in our institution. The aim of this study was to compare these procedures.

METHODS

Over a 10-year period, 686 patients underwent oesophagectomy at our institution. Out of these patients, 128 patients with cancer were treated with a hybrid minimally invasive technique. Each patient who underwent R-HMIE was matched according to gender, age, comorbidity, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, Union International Contre le Cancer stage, localization, histology and neoadjuvant treatment with a patient who underwent HMIE. Perioperative parameters were extracted from our database and compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

After the matching procedure, 88 patients were included in the study. Between HMIE and R-HMIE, no significant differences (P > 0.05) were found in operating time (median 281 vs 300 min), R0 resection rate (n = 42 vs 42), harvested lymph nodes (median 28 vs 24), hospital stay (median 19 vs 17 days) and intensive care unit stay (median 7 vs 6.5 days). Regarding surgical complications, no difference could be observed either (n = 42 vs 44).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy remains a challenging operation with high morbidity even in a high-volume institution. According to our intra- and short-term results, we have found no difference between R-HMIE and HMIE.

Side-to-side esophagogastric anastomosis for minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy: operative technique and short-term outcomes

Totally minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (TMIIL) is associated to lower rate of post-operative complication, decreases length of hospital stay and improves quality of life compared to open approach. Nevertheless, adaptation of TMIIL still proceeds at slow pace, mainly due to the difficulty to perform the intra-thoracic anastomosis and heterogeneity of surgical techniques. We present our experience with TMIIL utilizing a stapled side-to-side anastomosis. We retrospectively evaluated 36 patients who underwent a planned TMIIL from January 2017 to September 2020. Esophagogastric anastomoses were performed using a 3-cm linear-stapled side-to-side technique. General features, operative techniques, pathology data and short-term outcomes were analyzed. The median operative time was 365 min (ranging from 240 to 480 min) with a median blood loss of 100 ml (50–1000 ml). The median overall length of stay was 13 (7–64) days and in-hospital mortality rate was 2.8%. Two patients (5.6%) had an anastomotic leak, without need for operative intervention and another patient developed an anastomotic stricture, resolved with a single endoscopic dilation. Chylothorax occurred in three patients; two of these required a surgical intervention. Pulmonary complications occurred in six patients (16.7%). Based on Comprehensive Complications Index (CCI), median values of complications were 27.9 (ranging from 20.9 to 100). The results of our study suggest that TMIIL with a 3-cm linear-stapled anastomosis seems to be safe and effective, with low rates of post-operative anastomotic leak and stricture.

Complications and survival after hybrid and fully minimally invasive oesophagectomy

Background

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) is reported to produce fewer respiratory complications than open oesophagectomy. This study assessed differences in postoperative complications between MIO and hybrid MIO (HMIO) employing thoracoscopy and laparotomy, along with the influence of co-morbidities on postoperative outcomes.

Methods

Patients with oesophageal cancer undergoing three-stage MIO or three-stage HMIO between 1999 and 2018 were identified from a prospectively developed database, which included patient demographics, co-morbidities, preoperative therapies, and cancer stage. The primary outcome was postoperative complications in the two groups. Secondary outcomes included duration of operation, blood transfusion requirement, duration of hospital stay, and overall survival.

Results

There were 828 patients, of whom 722 had HMIO and 106 MIO, without significant baseline differences. Median duration of operation was longer for MIO (325 versus 289 min; P < 0.001), but with less blood loss (median 250 versus 300 ml; P < 0.001) and a shorter hospital stay (median 12 versus 13 days; P = 0.006). Respiratory complications were not associated with operative approach (31.1 versus 35.2 per cent for MIO and HMIO respectively; P = 0.426). Anastomotic leak rates (10.4 versus 10.2 per cent) and 90-day mortality (1.0 versus 1.7 per cent) did not differ. Cardiac co-morbidity was associated with more medical and surgical complications. Overall survival was associated with AJCC stage and co-morbidities, but not operative approach.

Conclusion

MIO had a small benefit in terms of blood loss and hospital stay, but not in operating time. Oncological outcomes were similar in the two groups. Postoperative complications were associated with pre-existing cardiorespiratory co-morbidities rather than operative approach.

Impact of Early Oral Feeding on Anastomotic Leakage Rate After Esophagectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Esophageal cancer occupies a vital position in fatal cancer-related disease, with esophagectomy procedures helping to improve patient survival. The timing when oral intake should be resumed after esophagectomy and whether early oral feeding (EOF) or delayed oral feeding (DOF) should be the optimal regimen are controversial.

METHODS

Databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library) were searched. All records were screened by two authors through full-text reading. Data on the anastomotic leakage rate were extracted and synthesized in meta-analyses. Postoperative pneumonia rate and length of hospital stay were also assessed.

RESULTS

Seven studies from 49 records were included after full-text reading; 1595 patients were totally included in the analysis. No significant difference was observed between the EOF and DOF groups (odds ratio [OR] 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-4.03; p = 0.2495; I² = 70%). Higher anastomotic leakage rate was observed in EOF compared with DOF (OR 2.89; 95% CI 1.56-5.34; p = 0.0007; I² = 10%) in the open subgroup. No significant difference was observed in the MIE (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.22-1.02; p = 0.0564; I² = 0%). Patients performed similarly in pneumonia (OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.57-2.21; p = 0.745; I² = 34%). In cervical subgroup, anastomosis leakage may be less in DOF (OR 2.42 95% CI 1.26-4.64; p = 0.0651; I² = 58%), while in thoracic subgroup, there is no obvious difference (OR 0.86 95% CI 0.46-1.61; p = 0.01; I² = 84.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Anastomotic leakage related to the timing of oral feeding after open esophagectomy, which is more favorable to the DOF regimen. However, timing of oral feeding did not impair anastomotic healing in patients undergoing MIE.

Minimally invasive techniques for transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oesophagectomy is a demanding operation that can be performed by different approaches including open surgery or a combination of minimal access techniques. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of open, minimally invasive and robotic oesophagectomy techniques for oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting open oesophagectomy, laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO), thoracoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (TAO), totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) or robotic MIO (RAMIO) for oesophagectomy. A network meta-analysis of intraoperative (operating time, blood loss), postoperative (overall complications, anastomotic leaks, chyle leak, duration of hospital stay) and oncological (R0 resection, lymphadenectomy) outcomes, and survival was performed.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight studies involving 32 315 patients were included in the network meta-analysis (open 17 824, 55·2 per cent; LAO 1576, 4·9 per cent; TAO 2421 7·5 per cent; MIO 9558, 29·6 per cent; RAMIO 917, 2·8 per cent). Compared with open oesophagectomy, both MIO and RAMIO were associated with less blood loss, significantly lower rates of pulmonary complications, shorter duration of stay and higher lymph node yield. There were no significant differences between surgical techniques in surgical-site infections, chyle leak, and 30- and 90-day mortality. MIO and RAMIO had better 1- and 5-year survival rates respectively compared with open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive and robotic techniques for oesophagectomy are associated with reduced perioperative morbidity and duration of hospital stay, with no compromise of oncological outcomes but no improvement in perioperative mortality.

Major Postoperative Complications in Esophageal Cancer After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Compared With Open Esophagectomy: An Updated Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the existing literature comparing cardiopulmonary complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with open esophagectomy (OE) and conduct a meta-analysis based on the relevant studies.

METHODS

A systematic search for articles was performed in Medline, Embase, Wiley Online Library, and the Cochrane Library. The relative risks or odds ratios (ORs) were calculated by using fixed or random-effects models. The I² and X² tests were used to test for statistical heterogeneity. We performed a metaregression for the pulmonary complications with the adenocarcinoma proportion and tumor stage. Publication bias and small-study effects were assessed using Egger's test and Begg's funnel plot.

RESULTS

A total of 30,850 participants were enrolled in the 63 studies evaluated in the meta-analysis. Arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism, pulmonary complications, gastric tip necrosis, anastomotic leakage, and vocal cord palsy were chosen as outcomes. The occurrence rate of arrhythmia was significantly lower in patients receiving MIE than in patients receiving OE (OR = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.53-0.89), with heterogeneity (I² = 30.7%, P = 0.067). The incidence of pulmonary complications was significantly lower in patients receiving MIE (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.45-0.63) but heterogeneity remained (I² = 72.1%, P = 0.000). The risk of gastric tip necrosis (OR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.07-2.05) after OE was lower than that after MIE. Anastomotic leakage, pulmonary embolism, and vocal cord palsy showed no significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

MIE has advantages over OE, especially in reducing the incidence of arrhythmia and pulmonary complications. Thus, MIE can be recommended as the preferred alternative surgery method for resectable esophageal cancer.

Early Respiratory Impairment and Pneumonia after Hybrid Laparoscopically Assisted Esophagectomy-A Comparison with the Open Approach

Patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery are at high risk of developing severe pulmonary complications. Beneficial effects of minimally invasive esophagectomy had been discussed recently, but the incidence of perioperative respiratory impairment remains unclear. This is a retrospective single-center cohort study of patients, who underwent open (OE) or laparoscopically assisted, hybrid minimally invasive abdomino-thoracic esophagectomy (LAE) for cancer regarding respiratory impairment (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio (P/FR) < 300 mmHg) and pneumonia. No differences were observed in the cumulative incidence of reduced P/FR between OE and LAE patients. Of note, until postoperative day (POD) 2, P/FR did not differ among both groups. Thereafter, the rate of patients with respiratory impairment was higher after OE on POD 3, 5, and 10 (p ≤ 0.05) and tended being higher on POD 7 and 9 (p ≤ 0.1). Although the duration of LAE procedure was slightly longer (total: p = 0.07, thoracic part: p = 0.004), the duration of surgery (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (r_sp) = -0.267, p = 0.006), especially of laparotomy (r_sp = -0.242, p = 0.01) correlated inversely with respiratory impairment on POD 3 after OE. Pneumonia occurred on POD 5 (1-25) and 8.5 (3-14) after OE and LAE, respectively, with the highest incidence after OE (p = 0.01). In conclusion, respiratory impairment and pulmonary complications occur frequently after esophagectomy. Although early respiratory impairment is independent of the surgical approach, postoperative pneumonia rate is reduced after LAE.

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Consensus Statement

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly performed in various ways. The lack of international definitions and nomenclature makes accurate comparison of outcomes difficult.

METHODS

An international, multispecialty consensus-writing committee constructed definitions and nomenclature for MIE. After a PubMed search, vetting, and review with all authors, a consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The proposed definition for MIE is an operation "that removes part or all of the esophagus, does not retract, lift, spread or remove any part of the chest or abdominal wall and the surgeon's and assistant's vision of the operative field is via a monitor, the patient's tissue is manipulated only by instruments that are controlled by the operating surgeon or team, except for during the neck portion if used." A flexible nomenclature is proposed that attempts to describe current and future operations and systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Definitions and nomenclature for MIE are needed to ensure that future studies accurately compare results and outcomes of similar operations. Nomenclatures allow surgeons, researchers, and patients from different cultures to use a common language to facilitate communication and compare. This process is required in order to improve patient outcomes globally to drive adoption of best of practice, yet is lacking for MIE.

Laparoscopically assisted versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer-the Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open (ROMIO) study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT)

INTRODUCTION

Surgery (oesophagectomy), with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy, is the main curative treatment for patients with oesophageal cancer. Several surgical approaches can be used to remove an oesophageal tumour. The Ivor Lewis (two-phase procedure) is usually used in the UK. This can be performed as an open oesophagectomy (OO), a laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO) or a totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIO). All three are performed in the National Health Service, with LAO and OO the most common. However, there is limited evidence about which surgical approach is best for patients in terms of survival and postoperative health-related quality of life.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will undertake a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare LAO with OO in adult patients with oesophageal cancer. The primary outcome is patient-reported physical function at 3 and 6 weeks postoperatively and 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include: postoperative complications, survival, disease recurrence, other measures of quality of life, spirometry, success of patient blinding and quality assurance measures. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing LAO with OO. We will embed a randomised substudy to evaluate the safety and evolution of the TMIO procedure and a qualitative recruitment intervention to optimise patient recruitment. We will analyse the primary outcome using a multi-level regression model. Patients will be monitored for up to 3 years after their surgery.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study received ethical approval from the South-West Franchay Research Ethics Committee. We will submit the results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN10386621.

Ivor Lewis esophagectomy patients are particularly vulnerable to respiratory impairment - a comparison to major lung resection

Pulmonary complications and a poor clinical outcome are common in response to transthoracic esophagectomy, but their etiology is not well understood. Clinical observation suggests that patients undergoing pulmonary resection, a surgical intervention with similarities to the thoracic part of esophagectomy, fare much better, but this has not been investigated in detail. A retrospective single-center analysis of 181 consecutive patients after right-sided thoracotomy for either Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (n = 83) or major pulmonary resection (n = 98) was performed. An oxygenation index <300 mm Hg was used to indicate respiratory impairment. When starting surgery, respiratory impairment was seen more frequently in patients undergoing major pulmonary resection compared to esophagectomy patients (p = 0.009). On postoperative days one to ten, however, esophagectomy caused higher rates of respiratory impairment (p < 0.05) resulting in a higher cumulative incidence of postoperative respiratory impairment for patients after esophagectomy (p < 0.001). Accordingly, esophagectomy patients were characterized by longer ventilation times (p < 0.0001), intensive care unit and total postoperative hospital stays (both p < 0.0001). In conclusion, the postoperative clinical course including respiratory impairment after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy is significantly worse than that after major pulmonary resection. A detailed investigation of the underlying causes is required to improve the outcome of esophagectomy.

Evolving changes of minimally invasive esophagectomy: a single-institution experience

BACKGROUND

Initial adoption of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) began in the late 1990s but its surgical technique, perioperative management, and outcome continues to evolve.

METHODS

The aim of this study was to examine the evolving changes in the technique, outcome, and new strategies in management of postoperative leaks after MIE was performed at a single institution over a two-decade period. A retrospective chart review of 75 MIE operations was performed between November 2011 and September 2018 and this was compared to the initial series of 104 MIE operations performed by the same group between 1998 and 2007. Operative technique, outcomes, and management strategies of leaks were compared.

RESULTS

There were 65 males (86.7%) with an average age of 61 years. The laparoscopic/thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy became the preferred MIE approach (49% of cases in the initial vs. 95% in the current series). Compared to the initial case series, there was no significant difference in median length of stay (8 vs. 8 days), major complications (12.5% vs. 14.7%, p = 0.68), incidence of leak (9.6% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.82), anastomotic stricture (26% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.38), or in-hospital mortality (2.9% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.47). Management of esophageal leaks has changed from primarily thoracotomy ± diversion initially (50% of leak cases) to endoscopic stenting ± laparoscopy/thoracoscopy currently (87.5% of leak cases).

CONCLUSION

In a single-institutional series of MIE over two decades, there was a shift toward a preference for the laparoscopic/thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis approach with similar outcomes. The management of postoperative leaks drastically changed with predilection toward minimally invasive option with endoscopic drainage and stenting.

Robot-assisted esophagectomy (RAE) versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: protocol for a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial (RAMIE trial, robot-assisted minimally invasive Esophagectomy)

Background

Currently, there are three main surgical approaches for resectable esophageal cancer: open transthoracic esophagectomy (OTE), conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot-assisted esophagectomy (RAE). Previous studies had demonstrated the better short-term outcomes in MIE or RAE when compared to OTE, respectively. However, to date, no prospective study was designed to compare these two minimally invasive approaches (MIE and RAE). The primary objective of this study is to compare the outcomes on survival, safety and efficacy, quality of life between RAE and MIE in the treatment for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

Methods

This study is designed as a multicenter, prospective, randomized, non-inferiority phase III clinical trial, investigating the safety and efficacy of RAE compared with MIE in the treatment of resectable ESCC. Eligible patients are randomly assigned to either RAE (n = 180) or MIE (n = 180) group. The follow-up visits will be scheduled at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in the first two years, and then every 6 months until the end of the study. During the follow-up period, clinical data and quality of life questionnaires will be examined. The primary endpoint is the 5-year overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints are 3-year OS, 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), short-term outcomes as well as quality of life.

Discussion

This is the first prospectively randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAE with MIE as surgical treatment for resectable ESCC. According to our hypothesis, RAE will result in at least similar oncologic outcomes and long-term quality of life, but with a shorter operation time, lower percentage of perioperative complications, lower blood loss, and shorter hospital stay when compared with MIE. This study started in July 2017. Follow-up will terminate after 5 years from the time when the last patient was enrolled.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT03094351 (March 29, 2017). The trial was prospectively registered.

Population-based study of anastomotic stricture rates after minimally invasive and open oesophagectomy for cancer

Background

The population‐based incidence of anastomotic stricture after minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) and open oesophagectomy (OO) is not known. The aim of this study was to compare rates of anastomotic stricture requiring dilatation after the two approaches in an unselected cohort using nationwide data from Finland and Sweden.

Methods

All patients who had MIO or OO for oesophageal cancer between 2007 and 2014 were identified from nationwide registries in Finland and Sweden. Outcomes were the overall rate of anastomotic stricture and need for single or repeated (3 or more) dilatations for stricture within the first year after surgery. Multivariable Cox regression provided hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals, adjusted for age, sex, co‐morbidity, histology, stage, year, country, hospital volume, length of hospital stay and readmissions.

Results

Some 239 patients underwent MIO and 1430 had an open procedure. The incidence of strictures requiring one dilatation was 16·7 per cent, and that for strictures requiring three or more dilatations was 6·6 per cent. The HR for strictures requiring one dilatation was not increased after MIO compared with that after OO (HR 1·19, 95 per cent c.i. 0·66 to 2·12), but was threefold higher for repeated dilatations (HR 3·25, 1·43 to 7·36). Of 18 strictures following MIO, 14 (78 per cent) occurred during the first 2 years after initiating this approach.

Conclusion

The need for endoscopic anastomotic dilatation after oesophagectomy was common, and the need for repeated dilatation was higher after MIO than following OO. The increased risk after MIO may reflect a learning curve.

Comparison of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and left transthoracic esophagectomy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients: a propensity score-matched analysis

Background

To investigate the long-term efficacy of the minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIILE) in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients, a retrospective comparison of the quality of life (QOL) and survival between patients who underwent MIILE and left transthoracic esophagectomy (Sweet approach) was conducted.

Methods

A detailed database search identified 614 patients who underwent MIILE and 243 patients who underwent Sweet esophagectomy between January 2011 and December 2017. After propensity score matching, 216 paired cases were selected for statistical analysis. Survival was evaluated with Kaplan-Meier curves or Cox models.

Results

MIILE was associated with a longer duration, less blood loss and more lymph node dissected than Sweet esophagectomy. MIILE patients suffered from less pain, less frequently developed pneumonia, and had fewer postoperative complications. Additionally, MIILE patients began oral intake earlier and had a shorter postoperative hospital stay, and enhanced recovery of QOL. There was no significant difference between the approaches regarding the recurrence pattern, 2-year and 5-year overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS), except that patients with tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage I in the MIILE group demonstrated superior OS and DFS. Pathological TNM stage and postoperative complications were determined to be independent prognostic factors based on the multivariate analysis.

Conclusion

MIILE is a safe and feasible approach for treating ESCC patients. MIILE approach may provide more postoperative advantages, enhanced QOL improvement, and more favorable long-term survival in early stage patients than the Sweet procedure.

Regionalization of thoracic surgery improves short-term cancer esophagectomy outcomes

Background

Some studies have found that outcomes from cancer esophagectomy are better at higher-volume centers than at lower-volume centers. Reports on outcomes following systematic centralization have largely demonstrated subsequent improvements, but these originate in nationalized healthcare systems that are not very comparable to the heterogeneous private-payer systems that predominate in the United States. We examined how regionalization of thoracic surgery to Centers of Excellence (CoE) within our American integrated healthcare system changed overall care for our patients, and whether it changed outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective chart review of 461 consecutive patients undergoing cancer esophagectomy between 2009-2016, spanning the 2014 shift to regionalization. High-volume was defined as ≥5 esophagectomies per year. We compared characteristics of the surgeon, hospital, and operation pre- and post-regionalization using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and Kruskal-Wallis test for age. We evaluated their associations with patient outcomes with hierarchical linear and logistic mixed models, which adjusted for clustering within surgeon and facility levels and relevant covariates.

Results

While there was no difference in their baseline demographics, patients undergoing esophagectomy post-regionalization were much more likely to have their surgery performed at a designated Center of Excellence (78.8% of cases versus 34.2%, P<0.001), at a high-volume hospital (92.1% from 75.7%, P<0.001), by a high-volume surgeon (78.8% from 58.8%, P<0.001), by a board-certified thoracic surgeon (82.5% from 64.0%, P<0.001), and by minimally-invasive, versus open, approach (60.8% from 22.1%, P<0.001). Post-regionalization patients were in higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classes (P=0.03) and trended toward higher-stage disease (P=0.14), indicative of the inclusion of higher-complexity patients. Despite that, regionalization was associated with improved short-term outcomes, most notably: average minimally-invasive esophagectomy (MIE) operative time decreased by 2 hours (-135.9 minutes, 95% CI: -172.2, -99.7 minutes); length of stay (LOS) decreased by 2.3 days (95% CI: -3.4, -1.2 days); and 30-day complication rate decreased significantly, from 50.7% to 30.2% (OR 0.45, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.79). Regionalization was the only variable significantly and independently associated with all three outcomes in our adjusted multivariable models. Mortality, both at 30 and 90 days, decreased modestly but was low pre-regionalization, and the difference did not reach significance.

Conclusions

Regionalization of thoracic surgery in our hospital system resulted in esophagectomies being performed by more experienced surgeons at higher-volume centers, with a concomitant improvement in short-term outcomes. Patients undergoing esophagectomy, particularly MIE, post-regionalization benefited significantly from decreased LOS and perioperative complication rate. Our results suggest that, in a large integrated healthcare system, regionalization significantly improves overall outcomes for patients undergoing cancer esophagectomy.

Can We Increase the Resection Rate by Minimally Invasive Approach? Experience from 100 Minimally Invasive Esophagectomies

Background

Whether we can increase the resection rate of esophageal cancer by minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is unknown. The aim was to report the number and results of MIE in high-risk patients considered unsuitable for open surgery and compare these results to other operated patients and to high-risk patients not undergoing surgery.

Methods

At Central Finland Central Hospital, between September 2012 and July 2018, the number of operated MIEs was 100. Of these, 10 patients were prospectively considered unfit for open approach. Nineteen additional high-risk patients with operable disease were ruled out of surgery. The short- and long-term outcomes of these 3 groups were compared.

Results

In patients eligible for any approach (n=90), MIE only (n=10), and no surgery (n=19), WHO performance status Grade 0 was observed in 66.7%, 20.0%, and 5.3%, respectively; stair climbing with ≥4 stairs was successfully completed in 77.8%, 50%, and 36.8%, respectively. Between any approach and MIE only groups, rate of major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3a) was 6.7% vs. 50.0% (p<0.001) without a difference in median hospital stay (9 vs. 10 days, p=0.542). Readmission rates were 4.4% vs. 30.0% (p=0.003). Survival rates were 100% vs. 80% (p<0.001) at 90-days, 91.5% vs. 66.7% (p=0.005) at 1-year, and 68.9% vs. 53.3% (p=0.024) at 3-years, respectively. In comparison between MIE only and no surgery groups, these survival rates from day of diagnosis were 80% vs. 100%, 68.6% vs. 67.1%, and 45.7% vs. 32.0% (p=0.290), respectively.

Conclusions

By operating patients unsuitable for open approach with MIE, the resection rate increased 11.1%. These high-risk patients had, however, higher early morbidity and reduced long-term survival compared to other operated patients. Though there seems to be long-term benefit of surgery compared to nonsurgical patients, we have to be cautious when offering surgery to those considered unfit for open surgery.

Early Oral Feeding Following McKeown Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: An Open-label, Randomized, Controlled, Noninferiority Trial

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to evaluate the impact of early oral feeding (EOF) on postoperative cardiac, respiratory, and gastrointestinal (CRG) complications after McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Nil-by-mouth with enteral tube feeding is routinely practiced after esophagectomy.

METHODS

Patients were randomly allocated to receive oral feeding on the first postoperative day (EOF group) or late oral feeding (LOF group) 7 days after surgery. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of postoperative CRG complications, and the secondary outcomes included bowel function recovery and short-term quality of life (QOL).

RESULTS

Between February 2014 and October 2015, 280 patients were enrolled in this study. There were 140 patients in the EOF group and 140 patients in the LOF group. EOF was noninferior to LOF for CRG complications (30.0% in the EOF group vs. 32.9% in the LOF group; 95% confidence interval of the difference: -13.8% to 8.0%). Compared with the LOF group, the EOF group showed significantly shorter time to first flatus (median of 2 days vs. 3 days, P = 0.001) and bowel movement (median of 3 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). Two weeks after the operation, patients in the EOF group reported higher global QOL and function scores and lower symptom scores than patients in the LOF group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients after McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy is noninferior to the standard of care with regard to postoperative CRG complications. In addition, patients in the EOF group had a quicker recovery of bowel function and improved short-term QOL.

Recent advances in thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Technical advances and developments in endoscopic equipment and thoracoscopic surgery have increased the popularity of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). However, there is currently no established scientific evidence supporting the use of MIE as an alternative to open esophagectomy (OE). To date, a number of single-institution studies and several meta-analyses have demonstrated acceptable short-term outcomes of thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, and we recently reported one of the largest propensity score-matched comparison studies between MIE and OE for esophageal cancer, based on a nationwide Japanese database. We found that, in general, MIE had a longer operative time and less blood loss than OE. Moreover, compared to OE, MIE was associated with a lower rate of pulmonary complications such as pneumonia, and both methods had similar mortality rates. Although MIE may reduce the occurrence of postoperative respiratory complications, MIE and OE seem to have comparable short-term outcomes. However, the oncological benefit to patients undergoing MIE remains to be scientifically proven, as no randomized controlled trials have been conducted to verify each method's impact on the long-term survival of cancer patients. An ongoing randomized phase III study (JCOG1409) is expected to determine the impact of each method with regard to short- and long-term outcomes.

The original Ivor Lewis two stage esophagectomy revisited in the era of minimally invasive surgery

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy has high cardiac and pulmonary complication rates that can reach 43% and 58% respectively. The original Ivor Lewis esophagectomy was a two-stage procedure. We revisited this procedure using a hybrid minimally-invasive approach.

METHODS

Thirty-five consecutive patients with esophageal cancer were operated on over an eight-year period. The first stage used laparoscopic mobilization of the stomach, while the second stage used open thoracotomy. Six patients were aborted due to unresectable disease.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients were studied. The mean operative times for stage-one and stage-two were 108 ± 18 and 226 ± 63 min respectively. All patients were extubated in the operating room. One (3.4%) patients had cardiac complication and one (3.4%) patient had pulmonary complication.

CONCLUSION

Metachronous hybrid two-stage esophagectomy was associated with a low rate of cardio-pulmonary complications. It may be considered as an alternative to the one-stage esophagectomy, especially in low-volume centers, to decrease these high-risk cardio-pulmonary complications.

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.

Safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy

Esophagectomy is associated with substantial morbidity. Robotic surgery allows complex resections to be performed with potential benefits over conventional techniques. We applied this technology to transthoracic esophagectomy to assess safety, feasibility, and reliability of this technology. A retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing robotic-assisted Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (RAIL) from 2009 to 2014 was conducted. Clinicopathologic factors and surgical outcomes were recorded and compared. All statistical tests were two-sided and a P-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. We identified 147 patients with an average age 66 ± 10 years. Neoadjuvant therapy was administered to 114 (77.6%) patients, and all patients underwent a R0 resection. The mean operating room (OR) time was 415 ± 84.6 minutes with a median estimated blood loss (EBL) of 150 (25-600) mL. Mean intensive care unit (ICU) stay was 2.00 ± 4.5 days, median length of hospitalization (LOH) was 9 (4-38) days, and readmissions within 90 days were low at 8 (5.5%). OR time decreased from 471 minutes to 389 minutes after 20 cases and a further decrease to mean of 346 minutes was observed after 120 cases. Complications occurred in 37 patients (25.2%). There were 4 anastomotic (2.7%) leaks. Thirty and 90-day mortality was 0.68% and 1.4%, respectively. This represents to our knowledge the largest series of robotic esophagectomies. RAIL is a safe surgical technique that provides an alternative to standard minimally invasive and open techniques. In our series, there was no increased risk of LOH, complications, or death and re-admission rates were low despite earlier discharge.

Multidisciplinary Approach to the Management of Esophageal Malignancies

INTRODUCTION

A multidisciplinary approach in the management of complex malignancies is becoming more common, and likewise, adopting such an approach to the care of patients with locally advanced esophageal is recommended in order to optimize clinical outcomes.

METHODS

In this review, we discuss both the surgical and medical oncology perspectives in the management of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. We review the data supporting the current standard-of-care approach, namely trimodality therapy with neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy followed by surgery. Other aspects of managing these patients including the control of dysphagia and pain as well as nutritional support are discussed. Finally, we review data that support the importance of incorporating a multidisciplinary streamlined approach in the management of these patients.

RESULTS

Rather than having patients see each provider separately, a multidisciplinary approach to esophageal cancer allows for the seamless flow of communication and proactive management of the patient's symptoms. These benefits include increasing the likelihood of evidence-based decision making, shorter time to treatment, and increased patient quality of life, all of which can result in improved patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The use of a multidisciplinary team can lead to a more accurate staging paradigm and thereby, better management decisions that translate to improved clinical outcomes. Therefore, optimizing the multidisciplinary approach for the care of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer is essential for successful and individualized patient care.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by minimally invasive esophagectomy: is it a superior approach for locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma?

Background

Few studies reported the outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in treating patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). The aim of the study was to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of nCRT plus MIE (RM) strategy in treating locally advanced resectable ESCC.

Methods

This retrospective study included 175 patients with ESCC undergoing surgical resection after neoadjuvant therapy in our institution from 2010 to 2016. Patients were stratified into three groups: RM, [neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) plus MIE] (CM) and [nCT plus open esophagectomy (OE)] (CO).

Results

Seventy-six (43.4%), 42 (24%) and 57 (32.6%) patients received RM, CM and CO approach, respectively. Compared with CO approach, RM or CM approach had shorter operation duration (188±39, 185±37 vs. 209±45 minutes, P=0.004, P=0.009) and less blood loss (124±88, 122±79 vs. 166±92 mL, P=0.001, P=0.003). There was a trend with lower risk of postoperative non-surgical complications in RM and CM approach [odds ratio (OR) 0.45, 0.200-1.040; P=0.062; OR 0.41, 0.150-1.160; P=0.093]. There were no differences in 30- and 90-day mortality among all groups. RM approach was more likely to achieve pathological complete regression (27.6% vs. 4.8%, 1.8%, P=0.001, P=0.001) and fewer lymph node metastasis (25.0% vs. 57.1%, 61.4%, P=0.001, P=0.001) than CM or CO approach. Survival analysis revealed a potential trend towards improved overall survival in RM approach compared with CM or CO approach (P=0.098, P=0.166).

Conclusions

RM approach was a safe and efficient strategy in treating locally advanced resectable ESCC.

The Learning Curve for Robotic McKeown Esophagectomy in Patients With Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy is a promising but technically demanding procedure; thus, a learning curve should be defined to guide training and allow implementation of this technique.

METHODS

This study retrospectively reviewed the prospectively collected data of 72 consecutive patients undergoing robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy by a single surgical team experienced in open and thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy. The cumulative sum method was used to analyze the learning curve. Patients were divided into two groups in chronological order, defining the surgeon's early (group 1: the first 26 patients) and late experience (group 2: the next 46 patients). Demographic data, intraoperative characteristics, and short-term surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Cumulative sum plots revealed decreasing thoracic and abdominal docking time, thoracic and abdominal console time, and total surgical time after patient 9, 16, 26, 14, and 26, respectively. The mean number of lymph nodes resected was greater in group 2 than in group 1 (22.6 ± 8.2 vs 17.4 ± 6.7, p = 0.008). No other clinic or pathologic characteristics were observed as significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

For a surgeon experienced in open and thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy, experience of 26 cases is required to gain early proficiency of robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy. A learning curve for robot-assisted esophagus dissection would require operations on 26 patients and stomach mobilization would require operations on 14 patients. For the tableside assistant, experience of at least nine cases is needed to achieve an optimal technical level for thoracic docking and 16 cases for abdominal docking.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy via Sweet approach in combination with cervical mediastinoscopy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a case series

Objective:

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly used for the treatment of esophageal cancer. However, MIE via the Sweet approach has seldom been reported owing to the challenging procedure for a mediastinal lymph node. Thus, the approach of MIE via left-sided thoracoscopy coupled with video-assisted cervical mediastinoscopy (MIE-SM) was explored for eradicating the mediastinal lymph nodes and recurrent laryngeal nerve; the incidence of perioperative complications, mortality, and surgical radicality were analyzed.

Materials and Methods:

Thirty patients with esophageal carcinoma underwent MIE-SM between June 2014 and February 2016. The primary outcome was postoperative morbidity within 2 weeks postsurgery. The secondary outcome was surgical radicality, including the circumferential margins, and the number of lymph nodes dissected.

Results:

The MIE-SM was completed in all patients within 367.6±68.7 minutes. The incidences of postoperative morbidities including pulmonary complications, anastomotic leakage, chylothorax, or recurrent nerve injury were 43.3%.

Conclusion:

The MIE-SM was utilized for the first time to reduce the disadvantage of purely Sweet and McKeown approach, with favorable efficacy in the mediastinal and laryngeal recurrent nerve lymph node eradication. Thus, MIE-SM might be a promising alternative approach in treating esophageal cancer in selected patients.

Short-Term Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive and Open Esophagectomy: A Population-Based Study from Finland and Sweden

BACKGROUND

Population-based studies comparing minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) relative to 90-day postoperative mortality are needed.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes following these two techniques for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Patients undergoing MIE (n = 217) or OE (n = 1397) for esophageal cancer between 2007 and 2014 were identified from nationwide complete registries in Finland and Sweden. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality, and secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and 30- and 90-day readmission rate. Results were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, tumor histology, surgery year, and country.

RESULTS

Ninety-day mortality rates were 4.1% (n = 9 of 217) for MIE and 6.8% (n = 95 of 1397) for OE; 90-day mortality was halved after MIE [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.99]. There was no difference in 30-day mortality (adjusted HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.29-2.66). Median hospital stay was 15 days for MIE and 16 days for OE (adjusted β -0.17, standard error 0.08, p = 0.030). The 30-day readmission rates were 8.9% after MIE and 12.0% after OE (adjusted HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34-0.94), while the 90-day readmission rates were 28.8% and 33.6%, respectively, without a statistically significant difference (adjusted HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61-1.10).

CONCLUSIONS

This population-based study from Finland and Sweden revealed lower 90-day mortality, shorter hospital stay, and lower 30-day readmission rates after MIE compared with OE for esophageal cancer. These findings support the use of minimally invasive approaches.