Minimally invasive esophagectomy: lessons learned from 104 operations. Ann Surg. 2008;248:1081-1091. [PMID: 19092354 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0b013e31818b72b5]

The impact of minimally-invasive esophagectomy operative duration on post-operative outcomes

Background

Esophagectomy, an esophageal cancer treatment mainstay, is a highly morbid procedure. Prolonged operative time, only partially predetermined by case complexity, may be uniquely harmful to minimally-invasive esophagectomy (MIE) patients for numerous reasons, including anastomotic leak, tenuous conduit perfusion and protracted single-lung ventilation, but the impact is unknown. This multi-center retrospective cohort study sought to characterize the relationship between MIE operative time and post-operative outcomes.

Methods

We abstracted multi-center data on esophageal cancer patients who underwent MIE from 2010 to 2021. Predictor variables included age, sex, comorbidities, body mass index, prior cardiothoracic surgery, stage, and neoadjuvant therapy. Outcomes included complications, readmissions, and mortality. Association analysis evaluated the relationship between predictor variables and operative time. Multivariate logistic regression characterized the influence of potential predictor variables and operative time on post-operative outcomes. Subgroup analysis evaluated the association between MIE >4 h vs. ≤4 h and complications, readmissions and survival.

Results

For the 297 esophageal cancer patients who underwent MIE between 2010 and 2021, the median operative duration was 4.8 h [IQR: 3.7-6.3]. For patients with anastomotic leak (5.1%) and 1-year mortality, operative duration was elevated above the median at 6.3 h [IQR: 4.8-8.6], p = 0.008) and 5.3 h [IQR: 4.4-6.8], p = 0.04), respectively. In multivariate logistic regression, each additional hour of operative time increased the odds of anastomotic leak and 1-year mortality by 39% and 19%, respectively.

Conclusions

Esophageal cancer is a poor prognosis disease, even with optimal treatment. Operative efficiency, a modifiable surgical variable, may be an important target to improve MIE patient outcomes.

Short-term outcomes of Ivor Lewis vs. McKeown esophagectomy: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to assess the rate of anastomotic leak and other perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing esophagectomy with either thoracic or cervical anastomosis.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was conducted by searching relevant literature studies in Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases. Articles that included patients undergoing esophagectomy and compared perioperative outcomes of McKeown with Ivor Lewis procedures were included. The primary outcome parameter was anastomotic leak, and secondary outcome parameters were grade ≥2 anastomotic leak, chylothorax, recurrent laryngeal nerve injury, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, postoperative mortality rate, operative time, blood loss, R0 resection rate, and lymph nodes examined.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies, with 3,291 patients (1,857 Ivor Lewis procedure and 1,434 McKeown procedure) were eligible for analysis. Meta-analysis showed that Ivor Lewis procedure was associated with lower rate of anastomosis leak of all grades [risk ratio (RR), 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.55-0.82; P = 0.0001], lower rate of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury (RR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.08-0.25), and shorter length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04-0.22). Grade ≥2 anastomotic leak, chylothorax, ICU length of stay, postoperative mortality rate, operative time, blood loss, R0 resection rate, and lymph nodes examined were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although all grades of anastomotic leak and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury are higher in the McKeown procedure, this meta-analysis supports similar short-term outcomes and oncological efficacy between Ivor Lewis and McKeown esophagectomy.

Clinical comparative study of glasses-free 3D and 2D thoracoscopic surgery in minimally invasive esophagectomy

Objective

To investigate the safety and efficacy of glasses-free three-dimensional (3D) thoracoscopic surgery in minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).

Methods

The clinical data of 98 patients, including 81 men and 17 women aged 45-77 years, with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent minimally invasive thoracoscopic esophagectomy from January 2017 to December 2019 [3 years, with clinical follow-up time: 1 year~4 years (2017.01-2020.12)] were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups according to different surgical methods including a glasses-free 3D thoracoscopic group (G-3D group: 38 patients) and a two-dimesional (2D) thoracoscopic group (2D group: 60 patients). The clinical outcome of the two groups were compared.

Results

The operation time of the thoracoscopic part in the G-3D group was significantly shorter than that in the 2D group (P<0.05). The total number of lymph node dissection in the G-3D group was more than that in the 2D group (P<0.05). The thoracic indwelling time, postoperative hospital stay, severe pulmonary infection, arrhythmia, anastomotic leakage, chylothorax, and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury were not significantly different between the two groups (P>0.05). There was also no significant difference between the two groups on the progression-free survival (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Glasses-free 3D thoracoscopic surgery for esophageal cancer is a safe and effective surgical procedure. Compared with 2D thoracoscopic MIE, glasses-free 3D thoracoscopic MIE for esophageal cancer has higher safety, more lymph node dissection, and higher operation efficiency through the optimized surgical operations. We believe that glasses-free 3D thoracoscopy for MIE is worthy of clinical promotion.

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Transhiatal robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: unclear benefits compared to traditional transhiatal esophagectomy

Esophagectomy is a high-risk operation, regardless of technique. Minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy could reduce length of stay and pulmonary complications compared to traditional open approaches, but the benefits of minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy are unclear. We performed a retrospective review of prospectively gathered data for open transhiatal esophagectomies (THEs) and transhiatal robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomies (TH-RAMIEs) performed at a high-volume academic center between 2013 and 2017. Multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for outcomes. 465 patients met inclusion criteria (378 THE and 87 TH-RAMIE). THE patients more likely had an ASA score of 3 + (89.1% vs 77.0%, p = 0.012), whereas TH-RAMIE patients more likely had a pathologic staging of 3+ (43.7% vs. 31.2%, p = 0.026). TH-RAMIE patients were less likely to receive epidurals (aOR 0.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03-0.14, p < 0.001), but epidural use itself was not associated with differences in outcomes. TH-RAMIE patients experienced higher rates of pulmonary complications (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.82, 95% CI 1.03-3.22, p = 0.040), particularly pulmonary embolus (aOR 5.20, 95% CI 1.30-20.82, p = 0.020). There were no statistically significant differences in lymph node harvest, unexpected ICU admission, length of stay, in-hospital mortality, or 30-day readmission or mortality rates. The TH-RAMIE approach had higher rates of pulmonary complications. There were no statistically significant advantages to the TH-RAMIE approach. Further investigation is needed to understand the benefits of a minimally invasive approach to the open transhiatal esophagectomy.

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.

Intrathoracic hand-sewn esophagogastric anastomosis in prone position during totally minimally invasive two-stage esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Utilization of totally minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer is on the rise. Esophagogastric anastomosis is mechanically or robotically performed routinely; little report exists of hand-sewn esophagogastric anastomosis. This is the largest so far study with thoracoscopic hand-sewn esophagogastric anastomosis during fully minimally invasive two-stage esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in prone position. Consecutive two-stage totally minimally invasive esophagectomies for cancer were performed by one surgical team, from September 2016 to March 2019. All operations were technically identical in terms of patient positioning, surgical approach, extend of lymphadenectomy and type of anastomosis formed. Primary end points were anastomotic leak and anastomotic stricture rate, while secondary end points were 30-day and 90-day mortality rates. From the overall n = 80 patients, n = 67 were males, while n = 13 were females. Mean age was 64.6 years. Mean length of stay was n = 14 days. There were no conversions to open. Mean operating time was 420 minutes with no blood loss over 200 mL noted. Pulmonary and cardiac complication rate was 23.75% and 2.5%, respectively. Anastomotic leak rate was 2.5%. Anastomotic strictures were seen in 12.5% of cases. 30-day and 90-day mortality rate was 2.5% and 5%, respectively, with none accounted for ischemic conduit complications. Intrathoracic anastomosis in totally minimally invasive esophagectomy is challenging and accountable for most of the mortality associated with the procedure. In thoracoscopic two-stage esophagectomy, a mechanical anastomosis is usually preferred; this is believed to be due to the complexity of manual anastomosis associated with the thoracoscopic approach. We aim to present our series of completely hand-sewn intrathoracic anastomosis utilizing a totally minimally invasive approach with favorable outcomes. With this study, reproducibility of the anastomosis is shown that can potentially favor a change in the practice of esophageal surgeons worldwide.

Functional outcome after laparoscopic assisted gastric transposition including pyloric dilatation in long-gap esophageal atresia

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Among the options for esophageal replacement in long-gap esophageal atresia (LGEA), gastric transposition (GT) is accessible for an endoscopic approach. Here we report a novel technique and functional results after laparoscopic-assisted gastric transposition (LAGT), including pyloric dilatation in patients with LGEA.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 14 children undergoing LAGT. Surgical steps included the release of the gastrostomy, transumbilical ante-situ section of the stomach including pyloric balloon-dilation, and laparoscopically controlled transhiatal retromediastinal blunt dissection followed by LAGT for cervical anastomosis to the proximal esophagus.

RESULTS

The median age at LAGT was 110 days (33-327 days), bodyweight 5.3 kg (3.1-8.3 kg). Operation time was 255 min (180-436 min); one conversion was necessary. The duration of ventilation was 4 days (1-14 days). Postpyloric feeding was started after 2 days, and oral feeding after 13 days. Complications were recurrent pleural effusion or pneumothorax and transient Horner syndrome or transient incomplete paresis of the recurrence nerve. After a median follow-up of 60 months (13-240 months), all children have a patent upper GI tract, show weight gain, and are fed without delayed gastric emptying, dumping, or reflux. Severe (n = 1) or mild (n = 2) anastomotic or pyloric (n = 5) stenosis was resolved with endoscopic dilatations.

CONCLUSIONS

Functional outcome after LAGT in patients with LGEA is good. The laparoscopic retromediastinal dissection preserves thoracal structures and increases patients' safety. The technique of pyloric dilatation might also prevent dumping syndrome.

TYPE OF STUDY

Case Series with no Comparison Group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

The Role of Endoscopic Stent in Management of Postesophagectomy Leaks

INTRODUCTION

Anastomotic leak is a dreaded complication following esophagectomy. Conventional management for leaks includes invasive reoperation and even gastrointestinal diversion.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine our contemporary outcome of using endoscopic esophageal stenting as primary therapy for management of anastomotic leak following minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).

METHODS

We reviewed data on 11 patients who developed an esophageal leak following 111 MIE between January 2011 and December 2019. Of the 11 anastomotic leaks, 10 patients had an anastomotic disruption and underwent endoscopic esophageal stenting as primary therapy for management of leaks, while 1 patient had an anastomotic disruption complicated by an associated tracheoesophageal fistula that required surgical reoperation and subsequent colonic interposition. Main outcome measures focused on the 10 patients who were managed with endoscopic stenting, including length of hospital stay following leak management, need for thoracotomy or gastrointestinal diversion for leak, stent complications, and leak-associated mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 10 patients who underwent endoscopic esophageal stenting as primary therapy for management of leaks, there were 8 males with a median age of 66 years. The median time to diagnosis of anastomotic leak was 10 days postoperatively. One of the ten patients also underwent percutaneous drain placement, while none of the patients required thoracotomy. Median duration of stent placement was 39 (range, 29-105) days. Median length of stay after stent placement was 10 (range, 4-43) days. The median number of stent exchange was 1 (range, 1-3) stent. Gastrointestinal continuity was maintained in all patients. The 90-day leak-associated mortality was 9.1% (1 of 11 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic stenting is an effective primary therapy in the management of postesophagectomy leak and avoids the need for an invasive, reoperative thoracotomy or gastrointestinal diversion procedure.

Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy with Linear Stapled Anastomosis Associated with Low Leak and Stricture Rates

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive foregut surgery is increasingly performed for both benign and malignant diseases. We present a retrospective series of patients who underwent minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIE) with linear stapled anastomosis performed at two centers in the USA, with a focus on evaluating leak and stricture rates.

METHODS

Patients treated from 2007 to 2018 were included, and data on demographics, oncologic treatment, pathology, and outcomes were analyzed. The surgical technique utilized laparoscopic and thoracoscopic access, with an intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis using a 6-cm linear stapled side-to-side technique.

RESULTS

A total of 124 patients were included and 114 resections (91.9%) were completed in a minimally invasive fashion with a 6-cm linear stapled side-to-side anastomosis. Patients were predominantly male (90.7%) with a median age of 66.0 years and body mass index of 28.8 kg/m². Of 121 patients with malignancy, negative margins were obtained in 94.3% and median lymph node yield was 15 (IQR 12-22). In the intention to treat analysis, median operative time was 463 min (IQR 403-515), blood loss was 150 mL (IQR 100-200), and length of stay was 8 days (IQR 7-11). Postoperative complications were experienced by 64 patients (51.6%) including respiratory failure in 14 (11.3%) and pneumonia in 12 (9.7%). In patients who successfully underwent a 6-cm stapled side-to-side anastomosis, anastomotic leaks occurred in 6 patients (5.1%) without need for operative intervention, and anastomotic strictures occurred in 6 patients (5.1%) requiring endoscopic management.

CONCLUSIONS

Ivor Lewis MIE with a 6-cm linear stapled anastomosis can be completed with a high technical success rate, and low rates of anastomotic leak and stricture.

Comparative Perioperative Outcomes by Esophagectomy Surgical Technique

INTRODUCTION

Surgical resection is vital in the curative management of patients with esophageal cancer. However, a myriad of surgical procedures exists based on surgeon preference and training. We report on the perioperative outcomes based on esophagectomy surgical technique.

METHODS

A prospectively managed esophagectomy database was queried for patients undergoing esophagectomy from 1996 and 2016. Basic demographics, tumor characteristics, operative details, and post-operative outcomes were recorded and analyzed by comparison of transhiatal vs Ivor-lewis and minimally invasive (MIE) vs open procedures.

RESULTS

We identified 856 patients who underwent esophagectomy. Neoadjuvant therapy was administered in 543 patients (63.4%). There were 504 (58.8%) open esophagectomies and 302 (35.2%) MIE. There were 13 (1.5%) mortalities and this did not differ among techniques (p = 0.6). While there was no difference in overall complications between MIE and open, complications occurred less frequently in patients undergoing RAIL and MIE IVL compared to other techniques (p = 0.003). Pulmonary complications also occurred less frequently in RAIL and MIE IVL (p < 0.001). Anastomotic leaks were less common in patients who underwent IVL compared to trans-hiatal approaches (p = 0.03). MIE patients were more likely to receive neoadjuvant therapy (p = 0.001), have lower blood loss (p < 0.001), have longer operations (p < 0.001), and higher lymph node harvests (p < 0.001) compared to open patients.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive and robotic Ivor Lewis techniques demonstrated substantial benefits in post-operative complications. Oncologic outcomes similarly favor MIE IVL and RAIL.

McKeown or Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly accepted in many countries. McKeown esophagectomy and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy are two protocols commonly used for MIE, but which one provides more benefit to the patients remains matter of controversy.

METHODS

All records in PubMed, Embase, Medline, The Cochrane Library, Wanfang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Chinese VIP Information till May 2019 were systematically retrieved to compare the cohort studies of McKeown esophagectomy and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. A meta-analysis of the extracted data was performed using the Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 15 software.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 23 cohort studies in which a total of 4,933 patients were enrolled. The results revealed that minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy (MIME) was superior to minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MILE) in hospital cost, but inferior to it in operating time, length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, anastomotic leakage, anastomotic leakage requiring surgery, anastomotic stenosis, recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) injury, chylothorax, pulmonary complications and total complications. There were no statistical differences between MIME and MILE in blood loss, detected number of lymph nodes, blood transfusion rate, R0 resection rate, re-operation rate, drainage duration, length of the stay in intensive care unit (ICU), 1-year mortality, lung infection, cardiac arrhythmia and delayed gastric emptying.

CONCLUSIONS

Except for the cost, MILE is superior to MIME in several aspects, and may represent a better choice for MIE. The results of the present study should be interpreted with caution since the meta-analysis is based on nonrandom cohort studies which may have a selection bias.

Learning Curve and Associated Morbidity of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Retrospective Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the morbidity that is associated with the learning curve of minimally invasive esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND

Although learning curves have been described, it is currently unknown how much extra morbidity is associated with the learning curve of technically challenging surgical procedures.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data were retrospectively analyzed of all consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in 4 European expert centers. The primary outcome parameter was anastomotic leakage. Secondary outcome parameters were operative time and textbook outcome ("optimal outcome"). Learning curves were plotted using weighted moving average and CUSUM analysis was used to determine after how many cases the plateau was reached. Learning associated morbidity was calculated with area under the curve analysis.

RESULTS

This study included 646 patients. Three of the 4 hospitals reached the plateau of 8% anastomotic leakage. The length of the learning curve was 119 cases. The mean incidence of anastomotic leakage decreased from 18.8% during the learning phase to 4.5% after the plateau had been reached (P < 0.001). Thirty-six extra patients (10.1% of all patients operated on during the learning curve) experienced learning associated anastomotic leakage, that could have been avoided if patients were operated by surgeons who had completed the learning curve. The incidence of textbook outcome increased from 28% to 53% and the mean operative time decreased from 344 minutes to 270 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable number of 36 extra patients (10.1%) experienced learning associated anastomotic leakage. More research is urgently needed to investigate how learning associated morbidity can be reduced to increase patient safety during learning curves.

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.

Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive and robotic-assisted esophagectomy

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has demonstrated superior outcomes compared to open approaches. The myriad of techniques has precluded the recommendation of a standard approach. The addition of robotics to esophageal resection has potential benefits. We sought to examine the outcomes with MIE to include robotics.

METHODS

Utilizing a prospective esophagectomy database, we identified patients who underwent (MIE) Ivor Lewis via thoracoscopic/laparoscopic (TL), transhiatal (TH), or robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis (RAIL). Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and complications were analyzed via ANOVA, χ², and Fisher exact where appropriate.

RESULTS

We identified 302 patients who underwent MIE: TL 95 (31.5%), TH 63 (20.8%), and RAIL 144 (47.7%) with a mean age of 65 ± 9.6. The length of operation was longer in the RAIL: TL (299 ± 87), TH (231 ± 65), RAIL (409 ± 104 min), p < 0.001. However, the EBL was lower in the patients undergoing transthoracic approaches (RAIL + TL): TL (189 ± 188 ml), TH (242 ± 380 ml), RAIL (155 ± 107 ml), p = 0.03. Conversion to open was also lower in these patients: TL 7 (7.4%), TH 8 (12.7%), RAIL 0, p < 0.001. The R0 resection rate and lymph node (LN) harvest also favored the RAIL cohort: TL 86 (93.5%), TH 60 (96.8%), and RAIL 144 (100%), p = 0.01; LN: TL 14 ± 7, TH 9 ± 6, and RAIL 20 ± 9, p < 0.001. The overall morbidity was lower in MIE patients that underwent a transthoracic approach vs. transhiatal: TL 29 (30.5%), TH 39 (61.9%), RAIL 34 (23.6%), p < 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing MIE via thoracoscopic/laparoscopic and robotic transthoracic approaches demonstrated lower EBL, morbidity, and conversion to open compared to the transhiatal approach. Additionally the oncologic outcomes measured by R0 resections and LN harvest also favored the patients who underwent a transthoracic approach.

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.

Quality Improvement in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Outcome Improvement Through Data Review

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy is a complex operation in which outcomes are profoundly influenced by operative experience and volume. We report the effects of experience and innovation on outcomes in minimally invasive esophagectomy.

METHODS

Esophageal resections for cancer from 2007 to 2016 at Levine Cancer Institute at Carolinas Medical Center (Charlotte, NC) were reviewed. During this time, three changes in technique were made to improve outcomes: vascular evaluation of the gastric conduit to improve anastomotic healing (beginning at case #63), one-stage approach to permit access to abdomen and chest through one draped surgical field (case #82), and adoption of a lung-protective anesthetic protocol (case #101). Mortality, operative time, complications, and length of stay were analyzed relative to these interventions using GLM regression.

RESULTS

200 patients underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy. There were no mortalities at 30 days, and no change in mortality rate at 60 and 90 days. Anastomotic leak decreased significantly after the introduction of intraoperative vascular evaluation of the gastric conduit (3.6 vs 19.4%). Operative time decreased with adoption of a one-stage approach (416 vs 536 min). Pulmonary complications decreased coincident with a change in anesthetic technique (pneumonia 6 vs 28%). Lymph node harvest increased over time. Length of stay was driven primarily by complications and decreased with operative experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative complications, operative time, and length of stay decreased with case experience and alterations in surgical and anesthetic technique. We believe that adoption of the techniques and technology described herein can reduce complications, reduce hospital stay, and improve patient outcomes.

Comparison of short-term outcomes between minimally invasive McKeown and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal or junctional cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for esophageal or gastroesophageal junctional cancer, with advantages of improved perioperative outcomes in comparison with open esophagectomy. McKeown and Ivor Lewis are widely used procedures of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and there have been controversies on which one is preferred for patients with resectable esophageal or junctional cancer.

Patients and methods

This review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (number CRD42017075989). Studies in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were thoroughly investigated. Eligible studies included prospective and retrospective studies evaluating short-term outcomes of minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy (MIME) vs minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MILE) in patients with resectable esophageal or junctional tumors. Main parameters included anastomotic leak and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. Overall incidence rates (ORs)/weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by employing random-effects models.

Results

Fourteen studies containing 3,468 cases were included in this meta-analysis. Age, male sex, and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage between the 2 groups were not statistically different. MIME led to more blood loss, longer operating time, and longer hospital stay than MILE. MIME was associated with higher incidence of pulmonary complications (OR =1.96, 95% CI =1.28–3.00) as well as total anastomotic leak (OR =2.55, 95% CI =1.40–4.63), stricture (OR =2.07, 95% CI =1.05–4.07), and vocal cord injury/palsy (OR =5.62, 95% CI =3.46–9.14). In addition, the differences of R0 resection rate, number of lymph modes retrieved, blood transfusion rate, length of intensive care unit stay, incidence of cardiac arrhythmia, and Chyle leak between MIME and MILE were not statistically significant. Notably, incidence of severe anastomotic leak (OR =1.28, 95% CI =0.73–2.24) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (OR =1.76, 95% CI =0.92–3.36) as well as 90-day mortality (OR =2.22, 95% CI =0.71–6.98) between the 2 procedures were also not significantly different.

Conclusion

This study suggests that MIME and MILE are comparable with respect to clinical safety. MILE may be a better option when oncologically and clinically suitable. MIME is still a safe alternative procedure when clinically indicated. However, this evidence is at risk for bias; randomized controlled trials are needed to validate or correct our results.

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.

Fondaparinux versus nadroparin for thromboprophylaxis following minimally invasive esophagectomy: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The methodology of thromboprophylaxis post minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is unclear. Thus, we compared the efficacy and safety of fondaparinux and nadroparin on the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after MIE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, treatment-controlled study. Consecutive patients undergoing MIE randomly received a single dose of either nadroparin 2850 AxaIU (Group H) or fondaparinux 2.5 mg (Group F) daily. We used ultrasonography to identify deep vein thrombosis (DVT) on postoperative day 7. The coagulation status was examined using thromboelastography (TEG) prior to and at 0, 24, 48, and 72 h after the operation. Bleeding events were recorded during anticoagulation therapy and analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.

RESULTS

We randomly assigned the patients to Group H (n = 57) or Group F (n = 59). Symptomatic or asymptomatic DVT was identified in seven patients in Group H and one patient in Group F (12.28% vs. 1.69%, p = 0.031). Pulmonary embolism developed in one patient in Group H, and the VTE incidence was significantly lower in Group F than Group H (1.69% vs. 14.04%, RR: 0.121, 95% CI: 0.016-0.935, p = 0.016). TEG analysis showed a more inhibited coagulation profile of Group F compared with Group H reflected by the significantly prolonged R time at 48 h and 72 h after operation (6.8 ± 2.2 min vs. 8.4 ± 2.7 min, p = 0.005; 7.1 ± 1.6 min vs. 9.2 ± 3.7 min, p = 0.002). Bleeding events were not recorded in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Fondaparinux could provide similar efficacy and safety in postoperative thromboprophylaxis following MIE compared with nadroparin.

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.

Near infrared perfusion assessment of gastric conduit during minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy

INTRODUCTION

Anastomotic leak and conduit necrosis are devastating complications following Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Near infrared imaging (NIR) using IndoCyanine Green allows for real time tissue perfusion assessment which may reduce anastomotic leak during minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIE).

METHODS

Forty consecutive MIE were performed by a single surgeon at a tertiary referral center. The first 20 were assessed for gastric conduit perfusion by clinical criteria (Group 1). The second 20 were also assessed using NIR laparoscopic system (Group 2).

RESULTS

Comparing Group 1 to Group 2, no significant differences were found in overall complication rate, readmission or reoperation rate. NIR resulted in resection of the non perfused proximal portion of the conduit in 30% (6/20). Two patients in group 2 group developed anastomotic leak (2/20) compared to 0 in Group 1 (p = 0.49). Graft necrosis led to one mortality in Group 1, while there were 0 mortalities in Group 2. (p = 1.0).

CONCLUSION

Although NIR plays a role in assessment of tissue perfusion, in our study its use did not result in reduction of anastomotic leak rate.

Thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy: thoracic stage in prone position

OBJECTIVE

to analyze the National Cancer Institute Abdominopelvic Division (INCA / MS/HC I) initial experience with thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy with thoracic stage in prone position.

METHODS

we studied 19 consecutive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomies from may 2012 to august 2014, including ten patients with squamous cells carcinoma (five of the middle third and five of the lower third) and nine cases of gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (six Siewert I and three Siewert II). All procedures were initiated by the prone thoracic stage.

RESULTS

There were minimal blood loss, optimal mediastinal visualization, oncological radicality and no conversions. Surgical morbidity was 42 %, most being minor complications (58% Clavien I or II), with few related to the technique. The most common complication was cervical anastomotic leak (37%), with a low anastomotic stricture rate (two stenosis: 10.53%). We had one (5.3%) surgical related death, due to a gastric tube`s mediastinal leak, treated by open reoperation and neck diversion. The median Intensive Care Unit stay and hospital stay were two and 12 days, respectively. The mean thoracoscopic stage duration was 77 min. Thirteen patients received neoadjuvant treatment (five squamous cells carcinoma and eight gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas). The average lymph node sample had 16.4 lymph nodes per patient and 22.67 when separately analyzing patients without neoadjuvant treatment.

CONCLUSION

the thoraco-laparoscopic approach was a safe technique in the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer, with a good lymph node sampling.

Robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: technique and early outcomes

Esophagectomy is pivotal for the long-term survival in patients with early stage and advanced esophageal cancer, and improved perioperative care and advanced surgical techniques have contributed to reduced postoperative morbidity. However, despite these advances, esophagectomy continues to be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive esophageal surgery (MIE) has been increasingly used in patients undergoing surgery for esophageal cancer. Potential advantages of MIE include the decreased postoperative pain; lower postoperative wound infection, decreased pulmonary complications, and decreased length of hospitalization. Robotic esophageal surgery has the ability to overcome some of the limitations of laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approaches to esophagectomy while maintaining the benefits of the minimally invasive approach. In this article, we will review the clinical efficacy and outcomes associated with robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (RAIL).

Predictive factors for post-operative respiratory infections after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: outcome of randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The first and only randomized trial comparing open esophagectomy (OE) with minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) showed a significant lower incidence of post-operative respiratory infections in the patients who underwent MIE. In order to identify which specific factors are related to a better respiratory outcome in this trial an additional analysis was performed.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Eligible patients, with a resectable intrathoracic esophageal carcinoma, including the gastro-esophageal (GE) junction tumors and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ≤2, were randomized to either MIE or OE. Respiratory infection investigated was defined as a clinical manifestation of (broncho-) pneumonia confirmed by thorax X-ray and/ or Computed Tomography scan and a positive sputum culture. A logistic regression model was used.

RESULTS

From 2009 to 2011, 115 patients were randomized in 5 centers. Eight patients developed metastasis during neoadjuvant therapy or had an irresectable tumor and were therefore excluded from the analysis. Fifty-two OE patients were comparable to 55 MIE patients with regard to baseline characteristics. In-hospital mortality was not significantly different [2% (open group) and 4% (MIE group)]. A body mass index (BMI) ≥26 and OE were associated with a roughly threefold risk of developing a respiratory infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Overweight patients and OE are independently associated with a significant higher incidence of post-operative respiratory infections, i.e., pneumonia.

McKeown or Ivor Lewis totally minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has consistently been associated with improved perioperative outcome and similar oncological safety compared to open esophagectomy. However, it is currently unclear what type of MIE is preferred for patients with resectable esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Literature was searched in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library combining relevant search terms. Articles that included patients undergoing totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) or hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) and compared McKeown with Ivor Lewis procedures were included. Studies were excluded if they included >10% of patients undergoing a procedure other than MIE McKeown or MIE Ivor Lewis (i.e., transhiatal resections). The primary outcome parameter was anastomotic leakage. Secondary outcome parameters were: other complications, reinterventions, reoperations, hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, postoperative mortality, operative time, blood loss, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes examined, quality of life and costs.

RESULTS

Five studies with a total of 1,681 patients undergoing TMIE were included. There were no studies comparing HMIE McKeown versus HMIE Ivor Lewis. There were no randomized controlled trials and all included studies were cohort studies with a moderate risk of bias. No meta-analysis could be performed for R0 resection rate, survival, quality of life and costs because there was insufficient data available for these parameters. The incidence of anastomotic leakage did not differ between the groups [relative risk (RR) =1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) =0.90-10.38, P=0.14]. TMIE Ivor Lewis was associated with a lower incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) trauma (RR =6.70, 95% CI =3.09-14.55, P<0.001), a shorter hospital length of stay [standardized mean difference (SMD) =0.17, 95% CI =0.06-0.28, P=0.002] and less blood loss (SMD =0.69, 95% CI =0.25-1.12, P=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

TMIE Ivor Lewis is associated with improved outcome regarding RLN trauma, hospital length of stay and blood loss as compared to TMIE-McKeown, but the incidence of anastomotic leakage is not different. The evidence is limited, of low quality and at risk for bias. A randomized controlled trial is currently being performed in order to demonstrate whether a McKeown or Ivor Lewis procedure should be preferred in patients undergoing MIE.

Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Recent Trends

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic resection for cancer represents a real challenge for every surgeon. Recent improvements in laparoscopic experience, minimally invasive surgical techniques and instruments make now the minimally invasive approach a real "triumph." There is no doubt that minimally invasive surgery has replaced with great success conventional surgery in many fields, including surgical oncology.

METHODS AND RESULTS

However, its progress in pancreatic resection for adenocarcinoma has been dramatically slow. Recent evidence supports the notion that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is safe and feasible and that is becoming the procedure of choice mainly for benign or low-grade malignant lesions in the distal pancreas. On the other side, minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy has not yet been widely accepted and there is enormous skepticism when applied for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. In this review, we summarize the current evidence on the potential applications of minimally invasive surgical approaches for this aggressive, heterogeneous, and enigmatic type of cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Moreover, the potential future applications of these approaches are discussed with the hope to improve the quality of life as well as the survival rates of pancreatic cancer patients.

Complications, Not Minimally Invasive Surgical Technique, Are Associated with Increased Cost after Esophagectomy

Background. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) techniques offer similar oncological and surgical outcomes to open methods. The effects of MIE on hospital costs are not well documented. Methods. We reviewed the electronic records of patients who underwent esophagectomy at a single academic institution between January 2012 and December 2014. Esophagectomy techniques were grouped into open, hybrid, MIE, and transhiatal (THE) esophagectomy. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the impact of surgery on total hospital cost after esophagectomy. Results. 80 patients were identified: 11 THE, 11 open, 41 hybrid, and 17 MIE. Median total cost of the hospitalization was $31,375 and was similar between surgical technique groups. MIE was associated with higher intraoperative costs, but not total hospital cost. Multivariable analysis revealed that the presence of a complication, increased age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class IV (ASA4), and preoperative coronary artery disease (CAD) were associated with significantly increased cost. Conclusions. Despite the association of MIE with higher operation costs, the total hospital cost was not different between surgical technique groups. Postoperative complications and severe preoperative comorbidities are significant drivers of hospital cost associated with esophagectomy. Surgeons should choose technique based on clinical factors, rather than cost implications.

Intrathoracic versus Cervical ANastomosis after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: study protocol of the ICAN randomized controlled trial

Background

Currently, a cervical esophagogastric anastomosis (CEA) is often performed after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). However, the CEA is associated with a considerable incidence of anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperation and moderate functional results. An intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis (IEA) might reduce the incidence of anastomotic leakage, improve functional results and reduce costs. The objective of the ICAN trial is to compare anastomotic leakage and postoperative morbidity, mortality, quality of life and cost-effectiveness between CEA and IEA after MIE.

Methods/design

The ICAN trial is an open randomized controlled multicentre superiority trial, comparing CEA (control group) with IEA (intervention group) after MIE. All patients with esophageal cancer planning to undergo curative MIE are considered for inclusion. A total of 200 patients will be included in the study and randomized between the groups in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperation, and secondary outcomes are (amongst others) other postoperative complications, new onset of organ failure, length of stay, mortality, benign strictures requiring dilatation, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

Discussion

We hypothesize that an IEA after MIE is associated with a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperation than a CEA. The trial is also designed to give answers to additional research questions regarding a possible difference in functional outcome, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

Trial registration

Netherlands Trial Register: NTR4333. Registered on 23 December 2013.

Esophagectomy and Gastric Pull-through Procedures: Surgical Techniques, Imaging Features, and Potential Complications

Esophagectomy takes the center stage in the curative treatment of local and local-regional esophageal cancer. It is a complex procedure with a high postoperative complication rate. When interpreting imaging studies, radiologists must understand the surgical techniques used and their potential complications. The most common surgical techniques are transthoracic esophagectomies, such as the Ivor Lewis and McKeown techniques, and transhiatal esophagectomy. Variations of these techniques include different choices of conduit (ie, stomach, colon, or jejunum) to serve in lieu of the resected esophagus. Postoperative imaging and accurate interpretation is vital in the aftercare of these patients. Chest radiographs, esophagrams, and computed tomographic images play an essential role in early identification of complications. Pulmonary complications and anastomotic leaks are the leading causes of postoperative morbidity and mortality secondary to esophagectomy. Other complications include technical and functional problems and delayed complications such as anastomotic strictures and disease recurrence. An esophagographic technique is described that is performed by using hand injection of contrast material into an indwelling nasogastric tube. Familiarity with the various types of esophagectomy and an understanding of possible complications are of utmost importance for radiologists and allow them to be key participants in the treatment of patients undergoing these complicated procedures.

Improved Functional Results After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Intrathoracic Versus Cervical Anastomosis

BACKGROUND

Both cervical esophagogastric anastomosis (CEA) and intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis (IEA) are used to restore gastrointestinal integrity following minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). No prospective randomized data on functional outcome, postoperative morbidity, and mortality between these techniques are currently available.

METHODS

A comparison was conducted including all consecutive patients with esophageal carcinoma of the distal esophagus or gastroesophageal junction undergoing MIE with CEA or MIE with IEA from October 2009 to July 2014 in 3 high-volume esophageal cancer centers. Functional outcome, postoperative morbidity, and mortality were analyzed.

RESULTS

MIE with CEA was performed in 146 patients and MIE with IEA in 210 patients. The incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy was 14.4% after CEA and 0% after IEA (p < 0.001). Dysphagia, dumping, and regurgitation were reported less frequently after IEA compared with CEA (p < 0.05). Dilatation of benign strictures occurred in 43.8% after CEA and this was 6.2% after IEA (p < 0.001). If a benign stricture was identified, it was dilated a median of 4 times in the CEA group and only once in the IEA group (p < 0.001). Anastomotic leakage for which reoperation was required occurred in 8.2% after CEA and in 11.4% after IEA (not significant). Median ICU stay, hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality were similar between the groups (not significant).

CONCLUSIONS

MIE with IEA was associated with better functional results than MIE with CEA with less dysphagia, less benign anastomotic strictures requiring fewer dilatations, and a lower incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. Other postoperative morbidity and mortality did not differ between the groups.

Transhiatal Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

Survival for esophageal cancer has improved over the past four decades, probably as a result of a combination of more accurate staging, improved surgical outcomes, advances in adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies, and the increasing implementation of multimodality treatment. Surgical resection still remains the mainstay in the treatment of localized esophageal adenocarcinoma. Multiple techniques have been described for esophagectomy, which are based on either a transthoracic or transhiatal approach. Despite proponents of each technique touting potential advantages such as superior oncologic resection with more extensive transthoracic lymphadenectomy compared to the relatively limited morbidity and mortality with a transhiatal resection, the superiority of one technique over another is not clear and may be relegated to a topic of historical significance in the era of minimally invasive surgery. With the increased acceptance of neoadjuvant multimodality therapy, both approaches have been shown to have acceptable outcomes. And in the hands of experienced surgeons, both techniques can provide excellent short-term results. Moreover, surgeon and hospital volume have shown to be strongly associated with improved operative morbidity and oncologic outcomes, which may supersede the type of approach selected for an individual patient.

Minimally Invasive Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy (MIILE): A Single-Center Experience

With the development of minimally invasive procedures, minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (MIILE) has been proposed as a safe and feasible surgical choice for the treatment of esophageal cancer. This retrospective study evaluated MIILE results from a single medical center. A total of 619 patients were selected as candidates for Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy from December 2011 to May 2015, in which 334 patients accepted MIILE and 285 patients accepted open Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (OILE). General characteristics, surgical data, complication rates, and survival were analyzed. Differences in general characteristics between groups were not significant. Intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.01), postoperative volume of drainage for the first day (P < 0.01), time to drain removal (P ≤ 0.01), wound infection rate (P = 0.04), and length of hospital stay (P < 0.01) were significantly reduced in the MIILE group. There were no statistically significant differences in general morbidity (P = 0.56), the total swept lymph nodes (P = 0.47), mortality (P = 0.34), and survival rate at 3 years (P = 0.63). MIILE is a safe and feasible method for the treatment of esophageal cancer, in which good outcomes were reported and some advantages were found over the open procedure.

Use of single-lumen tube for minimally invasive and hybrid esophagectomies with prone thoracoscopic dissection: case series

Minimally invasive and hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is a technically challenging procedure. Anesthesia for the same is equally challenging due to special requirements of the video-assisted thoracoscopic technique used and shared operative and respiratory fields. Standard ventilatory strategy for this kind of surgery has been 1-lung ventilation with the help of a double-lumen tube. Prone positioning for thoracoscopic dissection facilitates gravity-dependant collapse of the operative side lung induced by a unilateral capnothorax, thus making the use of single-lumen endotracheal tube a feasible option for this surgery. We report our experience of 10 consecutive cases of minimally invasive esophagectomy conducted in prone position at our center and the use of single-lumen endotracheal tube for ventilation.

Techniques and short-term outcomes for total minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophageal resection in distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancers: pooled data from six European centers

Introduction

Esophagectomy for cancer can be performed in a two-stage procedure with an intrathoracic anastomosis: the Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. A growing incidence of distal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas and increasing use of minimally invasive techniques have prompted interest in this procedure. The aim of this study was to assess short-term results of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIE-IL).

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed from June 2007 until September 2014, including patients that underwent MIE-IL for distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer in six different hospitals in the Netherlands and Spain. Data were collected with regard to operative techniques, pathology and postoperative complications.

Results

In total, 282 patients underwent MIE-IL, of which 90.2 % received neoadjuvant therapy. Anastomotic leakage was observed in 43 patients (15.2 %), of whom 13 patients (4.6 %) had empyema, necessitating thoracotomy for decortication. With an aggressive treatment of complications, the 30-day and in-hospital mortality rate was 2.1 %. An R0-resection was obtained in 92.5 % of the patients. After neoadjuvant therapy, 20.1 % of patients had a complete response.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas is an upcoming approach for reducing morbidity caused by laparotomy and thoracotomy. Anastomotic leakage rate is still high possibly due to technical diversity of anastomotic techniques, and a high percentage of patients treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. An aggressive approach to complications leads to a low mortality of 2.1 %. Further improvement and standardization in the anastomotic technique are needed in order to perform a safe intrathoracic anastomosis.

Consideration for Esophagectomy in Patients with Prior Bariatric Surgery

Bariatric surgery is frequently performed for the treatment of severe obesity. Esophageal cancer has been reported to occur in patients who had prior bariatric surgery. Due to the anatomic alterations associated with bariatric surgery, esophageal resection requires an understanding of certain technical considerations. This paper describes the technical considerations in performance of an esophageal resection in patients who had prior sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Quality of Life and Late Complications After Minimally Invasive Compared to Open Esophagectomy: Results of a Randomized Trial

Background

The minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is widely being implemented for esophageal cancer in order to reduce morbidity and improve quality of life. Non-randomized studies investigating the mid-term quality of life after MIE show conflicting results at 1-year follow-up. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine whether MIE has a continuing better mid-term 1-year quality of life than open esophagectomy (OE) indicating both a faster recovery and less procedure-related symptoms.

Methods

A one-year follow-up analysis of the quality of life was conducted for patients participating in the randomized trial in which MIE was compared with OE. Late complications as symptomatic stenosis of anastomosis are also reported.

Results

Quality of life at 1 year was better in the MIE group than in the OE group for the physical component summary SF36 [50 (6; 48–53) versus 45 (9; 42–48) p .003]; global health C30 [79 (10; 76–83) versus 67 (21; 60–75) p .004]; and pain OES18 module [6 (9; 2–8) versus 16 (16; 10–22) p .001], respectively. Twenty six patients (44 %) in the MIE and 22 patients (39 %) in the OE group were diagnosed and treated for symptomatic stenosis of the anastomosis.

Conclusions

This first randomized trial shows that MIE is associated with a better mid-term one-year quality of life compared to OE.

A comparison of short-term outcomes between Ivor-Lewis and McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Only few comparative studies have been reported on the outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with intrathoracic anastomosis (MIE Ivor-Lewis) and MIE with cervical anastomosis (MIE McKeown) for patients with mid and lower esophageal cancer. The objective of this study is to compare the safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes between two groups.

METHODS

Clinical and surgical data of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent either MIE Ivor-Lewis or MIE McKeown between January 2013 and October 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic characteristics, pathological data, operative procedures, and perioperative outcomes and survival in patients were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

Of the 72 patients included in this retrospective analysis, 32 underwent MIE Ivor-Lewis and 40 underwent MIE McKeown. Demographics, pathologic data, inpatient mortality, and surgical morbidity in both cohorts were almost identical. A significant difference was observed in Pulmonary complication (18.8% vs. 42.5%, P=0.032), Anastomotic leakage (9.4% vs. 30%, P=0.032), Anastomotic stenosis (12.5% vs. 35%, P=0.028), recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) injury (6.3% vs. 22.5%, P=0.034) between MIE Ivor-Lewis and MIE McKeown groups; however, no difference in operative time (312.6±82.0 vs. 339.4±80.0, P=0.249), blood loss (246.3±82.4 vs. 272.9±136.3, P=0.443), lymph nodes harvested (19.3±8.1 vs. 20.2±7.2, P=0.655) and 90-day mortality (3.1% vs. 5%, P=0.692) was observed between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The procedure of MIE Ivor-Lewis for esophageal cancer possesses advantages in perioperative outcomes and less complications compared with MIE McKeown.

Nationwide analysis of short-term surgical outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy for malignancy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is being increasingly utilized for esophageal cancer. It is unclear if MIE if being safely performed with satisfactory outcomes across the USA. We aimed to analyze the short-term surgical outcomes of MIE as compared to open esophagectomy (OE).

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients who underwent MIE or OE for esophageal malignancy between 2010 and 2011. Margin positivity, lymph node retrieval, 30-day mortality, 30-day unplanned readmission rate and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

A total of 4047 patients were identified; 3050 (75.4%) underwent OE, and 997 (24.6%) underwent MIE. The proportion of MIE increased from 21.9% in 2010 to 27.4% in 2011 (p < 0.001). The conversion rate was 13.7%. There were no differences in-patient or tumor characteristics between the two cohorts. OE and MIE were comparable in terms of margin positive resection rate (7.4% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.48), 30-day unplanned readmission rate (7.6% vs. 7.2%, p = 0.64) and 30-day mortality rate (4.3% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.71). Compared to OE, MIE was associated with higher node retrieval (median 12 vs 14, p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (median 11.0 vs 10.0 days, p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that surgical approach (OE vs MIE) was not associated with 30-day mortality rate. In an ANCOVA analysis, MIE was independently associated with a shorter hospital stay compared to OE (estimated mean difference 1.57 ± 0.53 days, p = 0.003). MIE patients who underwent conversion had a longer hospital stay compared to those who did not (11.0 vs 10.0 days, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

MIE is being offered more frequently to patients with esophageal cancer, and maybe accompanied with better short-term outcomes including shorter hospital stay when compared to open esophagectomy.