A prospective comparison of totally minimally invasive versus open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy

Increased risk of diaphragmatic herniation following esophagectomy with a minimally invasive abdominal approach

OBJECTIVE

Diaphragmatic herniation is a rare complication following esophagectomy, associated with risks of aspiration pneumonia, bowel obstruction, and strangulation. Repair can be challenging due to the presence of the gastric conduit. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the incidence and risk factors associated with diaphragmatic herniation following esophagectomy, the timing and mode of presentation, and outcomes of repair.

METHODS

A systematic search using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines was performed using four major databases. A meta-analysis of diaphragmatic herniation incidence following esophagectomies with a minimally invasive abdominal (MIA) approach compared with open esophagectomies was conducted. Qualitative analysis was performed for tumor location, associated symptoms, time to presentation, and outcomes of postdiaphragmatic herniation repair.

RESULTS

This systematic review consisted of 17,052 patients from 32 studies. The risk of diaphragmatic herniation was 2.74 times higher in MIA esophagectomy compared with open esophagectomy, with pooled incidence of 6.0% versus 3.2%, respectively. Diaphragmatic herniation was more commonly seen following surgery for distal esophageal tumors. Majority of patients (64%) were symptomatic at diagnosis. Presentation within 30 days of operation occurred in 21% of cases and is twice as likely to require emergent repair with increased surgical morbidity. Early diaphragmatic herniation recurrence and cardiorespiratory complications are common sequelae following hernia repair.

CONCLUSIONS

In the era of MIA esophagectomy, one has to be cognizant of the increased risk of diaphragmatic herniation and its sequelae. Failure to recognize early diaphragmatic herniation can result in catastrophic consequences. Increased vigilance and decreased threshold for imaging during this period is warranted.

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.

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.

A refined procedure for esophageal resection using a full minimally invasive approach

Objective

Newer minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy have brought substantial benefits to esophageal-cancer patients and continue to improve. We report here our experience with a streamlined procedure as part of a comprehensive perioperative-care program that provides additional advances in the continued evolution of this procedure.

Methods

All patients with primary esophageal cancer referred for resection to the Oakland Medical Center of the Kaiser-Permanente Northern California health plan who underwent this approach between January 2013 and August 2018 were included. Operative and clinical outcome variables were extracted from the electronic medical record, operating-room files, and manual chart review.

Results

142 patients underwent the new procedure and care program; 121 (85.2%) were men with mean age of 64.5 years. 127 (89.4%) were adenocarcinoma; 117 (82.4%) were clinical stage III or IVA. 115 (81.0%) required no jejunostomy. Median hospital length-of-stay was 3 days and 8 (5.6%) patients required admission to the intensive care unit. Postoperative complications occurred in 22 (15.5%) patients within 30 days of the procedure. There were no inpatient deaths; one patient (0.7%) died within 30 days following discharge and three additional deaths (2.1%) occurred through 90 days of follow-up.

Conclusions

This approach resulted in excellent clinical outcomes, including short hospital stays with limited need for the intensive care unit, few perioperative complications, and relatively few patients requiring feeding tubes on discharge. This comprehensive approach to esophagectomy is feasible and provides another clinically meaningful advance in the progress of minimally invasive esophagectomy. Further development and dissemination of this method is warranted.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13019-022-01765-2.

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.

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.

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.

Effect of anastomotic leaks on long-term survival after oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Long-term survival after curative surgery for oesophageal cancer surgery remains poor, and the prognostic impact of anastomotic leak (AL) remains unknown. A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the impact of AL on long-term survival.

METHODS

A systematic electronic search for articles was performed for studies published between 2001 and 2020 evaluating the long-term oncological impact of AL. Meta-analysis was performed using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model to compute hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria, yielding a total of 9885 patients. Long-term survival was significantly reduced after AL (HR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.33-2.43). AL was associated with significantly reduced overall survival in studies within hospital volume Quintile 1 (HR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.12-1.63) and Quintile 2 (HR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.35-2.47). However, no significant association was found for studies within Quintile 3 (HR: 2.24, 95% CI: 0.85-5.88), Quintile 4 (HR: 2.59, 95% CI: 0.67-10.07), and Quintile 5 (HR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.92-1.81). AL was significantly associated with poor long-term survival in patients with associated overall Clavien Dindo Grades 1-5 (HR: 2.17, 95% CI: 1.31-3.59) and severe Clavien Dindo Grades 3-5 (HR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.14-1.78) complications.

CONCLUSIONS

AL has a negative prognostic impact on long-term survival after restorative resection of oesophageal cancers, particularly in low-volume centers. Future efforts must be focused on strategies to minimize the septic and immunological response to AL with early recognition and treatment thus reducing the impact on long-term survival.

The assessment of intraoperative technique-related risk factors and the treatment of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy: a narrative review

Anastomotic leakage, including cervical anastomotic leakage and intrathoracic anastomotic leakage, is a serious complication of esophageal cancer and a leading cause of death after esophagectomy. In fact, anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy can be caused by numerous factors in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods. Intraoperative technique-related risk factors, including surgical methods, anastomosis sites, anastomosis methods, the type of gastric tube, and reconstruction routes, are the key causes of its occurrence. Anastomotic leakage treatments include both surgical and non-surgical treatments, while surgical treatment has high risks, many complications, and high mortality. Actually, non-surgical methods including naso-leakage drainage, stent, negative pressure therapy, and so on, are also very critical in the treatment of anastomotic leakage. So, the selection of correct and appropriate treatment methods plays an important role in alleviating the suffering of patients, shortening hospitalization time, and reducing mortality. This study undertook a systematic review in which data in the PubMed database were searched and analyzed to assess the safety and efficacy of surgical technique-related factors in esophagectomy, and appropriate treatment of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy. In conclusion, gastric tube, posterior mediastinal route and stapled anastomosis are safe among esophagectomy surgical techniques, and non-surgical treatment of anastomotic leakage such as naso-leakage drainage is feasible in the majority of cases.

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.

Hiatal hernia after oesophagectomy: a large European survey

OBJECTIVES

Hiatal hernias (HH) after oesophagectomy are rare, and their surgical management is not well standardized. Our goal was to report on the management of HH after oesophagectomy in high-volume tertiary European French-speaking centres.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective multicentre study among 19 European French-speaking departments of upper gastrointestinal and/or thoracic surgery. All patients scheduled or operated on for the repair of an HH after oesophagectomy were collected between 2000 and 2016. Demographics, details of the initial procedure, surgical management and long-term outcome were analysed.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine of 6608 (1.2%) patients who had oesophagectomies were included in the study. The postoesophagectomy diagnostic interval of an HH after oesophagectomy was ≤90 days (n = 17; 21%), 13 were emergency cases; between 91 days and 1 year, n = 21 (27%), 13 in emergency; ≥1 year, n = 41 (52%), 17 in emergency. The time to occurrence of HH after oesophagectomy was shorter after laparoscopy (median 308 days; interquartile range 150-693) compared to that after laparotomy (median 562 days, interquartile range 138-1768; P = 0.01). The incidence of HH after oesophagectomy was 0.73% (22/3010) after open surgery and 1.4% (26/1761) after laparoscopy (P = 0.03). Among the 79 patients, 78 were operated on: 35 had laparotomies (45%), 19 had laparoscopies (24%) and 24 (31%) had transthoracic approaches. Among the 43 urgent surgeries, 35 were open (25 laparotomies and 10 transthoracic approaches) and 8 were laparoscopies (conversion rate, 25%). Nine patients required bowel resections. Morbidity occurred in 36 (46%) patients with 1 postoperative death (1.2%). During the follow-up period, recurrent HH after oesophagectomy requiring revisional surgery developed in 8 (6 days-26 months) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical management of HH after oesophagectomy could be done by laparoscopy in patients with scheduled surgery but laparotomy or thoracotomy was preferred in urgent situations. The incidence of HH after oesophagectomy is higher and its onset earlier when laparoscopy is used at the initial oesophagectomy.

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.

The Impact of Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy with Neck-Abdominal First Approach on the Short- and Long-Term Outcomes for Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is no consensus for an optimal minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) approach. This study aimed to compare hybrid MIE (hMIE) with neck-abdominal first approach to standard open esophagectomy (OE).

METHODS

Data from a cohort of 301 patients were retrospectively analyzed. All participants received either hMIE or OE for the treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma at Tokyo Medical and Dental University between January 2003 and December 2013. Analyses included propensity score matching and the Kaplan-Meier statistical method to determine overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of the cohort.

RESULTS

After one-to-one propensity score matching, there were 68 patient pairs. The hMIE group had significantly lower incidence of severe postoperative complications (20.1% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.026) and severe respiratory complications (7.4% vs. 0%; p = 0.058) than the OE group. The 5-year oncological outcomes of the two groups were almost equivalent (OS: OE, 55.0%; hMIE, 69.0%; p = 0.063 and DFS: OE, 54.0%; hMIE, 62.0%; p = 0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

This study compared hMIE with neck-abdominal first approach to standard OE. The results showed significantly less severe postoperative complications for hMIE with neck-abdominal first approach in comparison with OE, without a compromise in long-term oncological outcomes.

Long-term oncological outcomes following completely minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy

Open esophagectomy (OE) for esophageal and gastroesophageal junctional cancers is associated with high morbidity. Completely minimally invasive esophagectomy (CMIE) techniques have evolved over the last two decades and significantly reduce surgical trauma compared to open surgery. Despite this, long-term oncological outcomes following CMIE compared to OE remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare overall 5-year survival (OFS) and disease-free 5-year survival (DFFS) between CMIE and OE. It was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive electronic literature search from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. The PROSPERO database was also searched for studies comparing OFS and DFFS between CMIE and OE. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality for included studies. Overall, seven studies (containing 949 patients: 527 OE and 422 CMIE) were identified from screening. On pooled meta-analysis, there was no significant difference in OFS or DFFS between CMIE and OE cohorts ([odds ratio 1.12; 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.48; P = 0.41] and [odds ratio 1.34; 95% CI: 0.81-2.22; P = 0.25] respectively). Sensitivity and subgroup analysis with high-quality studies, three highest sample sized studies, and three most recent studies also revealed no difference in long-term oncological outcomes between the two operative groups. This review demonstrates long-term oncological outcomes following CMIE appear equivalent to OE based on amalgamation of existing published literature. Limited high-level evidence comparing OFS and DFFS between CMIE and OE exists. Further research with a randomized controlled trial is required to clinically validate these findings.

Postoperative short-term outcomes of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to synthesize the available evidence regarding short‐term outcomes between minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE).

Methods

Studies were identified by searching databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library up to March 2019 without language restrictions. Results of these searches were filtered according to a set of eligibility criteria and analyzed in line with PRISMA guidelines.

Results

There were 33 studies included with a total of 13 269 patients in our review, out of which 4948 cases were of MIE and 8321 cases were of OE. The pooled results suggested that MIE had a better outcome regarding all‐cause respiratory complications (RCs) (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.41–0.78, P = <0.001), in‐hospital duration (SMD = −0.51; 95% CI = −0.78−0.24; P = <0.001), and blood loss (SMD = −1.44; 95% CI = −1.95−0.93; P = <0.001). OE was associated with shorter duration of operation time, while no statistically significant differences were observed regarding other outcomes. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed for a number of different postoperative events.

Conclusions

Our study indicated that MIE had more favorable outcomes than OE from the perspective of short‐term outcomes. Further large‐scale, multicenter randomized control trials are needed to explore the long‐term survival outcomes after MIE versus OE.

Postoperative complications of minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been performed increasingly more frequently for the treatment of esophageal cancer, ever since it was first described in 1992. However, the incidence of postoperative complications of MIE has not yet been well-characterized, because (a) there are few reports of studies with a sufficient sample size, (b) a variety of minimally invasive surgical techniques are used, and (c) there are few reports in which an established system for classifying the severity of complications is examined. According to an analysis performed by the Esophageal Complications Consensus Group, the most common complications of MIE are pneumonia, arrhythmia, anastomotic leakage, conduit necrosis, chylothorax, and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. Therefore, we decided to focus on these complications. We selected 48 out of 1245 reports of studies (a) that included more than 50 patients each, (b) in which the esophagectomy technique used was clearly described, and (c) in which the complications were adequately described. The overall incidences of the postoperative complications of MIE for esophageal cancer were analyzed according to the MIE technique adopted, that is, McKeown MIE, Ivor Lewis MIE, robotic-assisted McKeown MIE, robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis MIE, or mediastinoscopic transmediastinal esophagectomy. Pneumonia, arrhythmia, anastomotic leakage, and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy occurred at an incidence rate of about 10% each; Ivor Lewis MIE was associated with a relatively low incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. It is important to recognize that the incidences of complications of MIE are influenced by the MIE technique adopted and the extent of lymph node dissection.

Thoracoscopy in prone position with two-lung ventilation compared to conventional thoracotomy during Ivor Lewis procedure: a multicenter case-control study

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative management based on thoracoscopy, prone position and two-lung ventilation could decrease the rate of postoperative pulmonary complications after esophagectomy. The aim of this study was to compare this multifaceted approach (MIE-PP) and conventional thoracotomy for Ivor Lewis procedure after a systematic laparoscopic dissection.

METHODS

Data from 137 consecutive patients undergoing Ivor Lewis procedures between 2010 and 2017 at two tertiary centers was analyzed retrospectively. The outcomes of patients who underwent MIE-PP (n = 58; surgeons group 1) were compared with those of patients undergoing conventional approach (n = 79; surgeons group 2). Our primary outcome was major postoperative pulmonary complications. Our main secondary outcomes were anastomotic leak, quality of resection and mortality.

RESULTS

Female patients were more prevalent in the MIE-PP group (p = 0.002). Other patient characteristics, cTNM staging and neoadjuvant treatment rate were not different between groups. Major postoperative pulmonary complications were significantly lower in the MIE-PP group compared to Conventional group (24 vs. 44%; p = 0.014). Anastomotic leak occurred in 31 versus 18% in MIE-PP group and Conventional groups, respectively (p = 0.103). Complete resection rate (98 vs. 95%; p = 0.303) and mean number of harvested lymph nodes (16 (4-40) vs. 18 (3-37); p = 0.072) were similar between the two groups. Postoperative mortality rates were 0 versus 2% at day 30 (p = 0.508) and 0 versus 7.6% at day 90 (p = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

Short-term outcomes of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis using thoracoscopy, prone position and two-lung ventilation are at least equivalent to the hybrid approach. Anastomotic leak after MIE-PP remains a major concern.

Safe Introduction of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy at a Medium Volume Center

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is a favored alternative in high-volume centers. We evaluated the introduction of, and transition to, minimally invasive esophagectomy at a medium volume tertiary referral center (10-20 esophagectomies annually) with focus on surgical results.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy or open transthoracic surgery for carcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction (Siewert I and II) during 2007-2016 were retrospectively studied. Sorted on surgical approach, perioperative data, surgical outcomes, and postoperative complications were analyzed and multivariate regression models were used to adjust for possible confounders.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixteen patients were included, 51 minimally invasive esophagectomy (21 hybrid and 30 totally minimally invasive) and 65 open resections. The groups were well matched. However, higher body mass index, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and cervical anastomosis were more frequent in the minimally invasive esophagectomy group. Minimally invasive esophagectomy was associated with less peroperative bleeding (384 vs 607 mL, p = 0.036) and reduced length of stay (14 vs 15 days, p = 0.042). Duration of surgery, radical resection rate, and postoperative complications did not differ between groups. Lymph node yield was higher in the minimally invasive esophagectomy group, 18 (13-23) vs 12 (8-16), p < 0.001, confirmed in a multivariate regression model (adjusted odds ratio 3.15, 95% class interval 1.11-8.98, p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

The introduction of minimally invasive esophagectomy at a medium volume tertiary referral center resulted in superior lymph node yield, less peroperative blood loss and shorter length of stay, without compromising the rate of radical resection, or increasing the complication rate.

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.

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.

Impact of surgical approach on perioperative and long-term outcomes following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection remains a critical component of esophageal cancer treatment with curative-intent. The aim of this study was to compare open (OE) to minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIE) with respect to perioperative and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective single-institution review of MIE and OE patients operated between 2001 and 2015 was conducted. Univariable and multivariable models were created using Cox regression. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare oncologic outcomes. Propensity score matching was used to compare oncological outcomes in MIE and OE patients.

RESULTS

Of 210 esophageal resection patients, 47% had OE (137/291) and 25% had MIE (73/291). The MIE and OE groups were comparable with respect to patient factors and operative details. Fewer OE patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. MIE was associated with improved lymph node yield, (MIE = 30 [IQR:22-39]; OE = 14 [IQR:7-19], p < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (MIE = 312 mL [100-400]; OE = 657 mL [350-700], p < 0.001), and shorter median length of stay (MIE = 10 days [IQR = 8-14]; OE = 14 days [IQR = 11-22] p < 0.01). The OE group had significantly more adverse events resulting in reoperation or intensive care unit admission (MIE = 21%; OE = 34%; p < 0.01). On multivariable analysis, age and positive resection margins were associated with decreased odds of survival. The number of lymph nodes retrieved, positive resection margins, and pathologic stage were significant predictors of disease-free survival. Analysis of 69 matched pairs showed equivalent median overall survival (MIE = 49 months [18-67]; OE = 29 months [17-69]; p = 0.26) and disease-free survival (MIE = 9 [6-22]; OE = 13 [6-22]; p = 0.45) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although long-term oncologic outcomes appear to be similar, MIE is associated with significantly less intraoperative blood loss, improved lymph node yield, less risk of severe postoperative adverse events, and shorter length of stay.

Hiatal Hernia After Esophagectomy for Cancer

BACKGROUND

Hiatal hernia (HH) after esophagectomy is becoming more relevant due to improvements in survival. This study evaluated and compared the occurrence and clinical course of HH after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).

METHODS

The prospectively recorded characteristics of patients treated with esophagectomy for cancer at 2 tertiary referral centers in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands between 2000 and 2014 were reviewed. Computed tomography reports were reviewed to identify HH.

RESULTS

Of 657 patients, MIE was performed in 432 patients (66%) and open esophagectomy in 225 (34%). A computed tomography scan was performed in 488 patients (74%). HH was diagnosed in 45 patients after a median of 20 months (range, 0 to 101 months). The development of HH after MIE was comparable to the open approach (8% vs 5%, p = 0.267). At the time of diagnosis, 14 patients presented as a surgical emergency. Of the remaining 31 patients, 17 were symptomatic and 14 were asymptomatic. An elective operation was performed in 10 symptomatic patients, and all others were treated conservatively. During conservative treatment, 2 patients presented as a surgical emergency. An emergency operation resulted in a prolonged intensive care unit stay compared with an elective procedure (3 vs 0 days, p < 0.001). In-hospital deaths were solely seen after emergency operations (19%).

CONCLUSIONS

HH is a significant long-term complication after esophagectomy, occurring in a substantial proportion of the patients. The occurrence of HH after MIE and open esophagectomy is comparable. Emergency operation is associated with dismal outcomes and should be avoided.

The Development, Application and Analysis of an Enhanced Recovery Programme for Major Oesophagogastric Resection

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery programmes improve outcomes in surgery, but their implementation after upper gastrointestinal resection has been limited. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes for patients undergoing oesophagogastric surgery in an enhanced recovery programme (EROS).

METHODS

EROS was developed after a multidisciplinary meeting by multiple rounds of revision. EROS was applied to all patients undergoing major upper GI resection at a university teaching hospital in the UK from 20/9/13, with data reviewed at 18/09/15. EROS was assessed to identify predictors for compliance.

RESULTS

One hundred six patients underwent major upper GI resection including 81 oesophagectomies, 24 gastrectomies and 1 colonic interposition graft. Major complications (Clavien Dindo ≥3) occurred in 12 patients with 1 in-hospital death. Thirty-five patients (44%) were discharged on target day 8 of the EROS programme. Age and complications were independently associated with missing this discharge target.

CONCLUSION

Enhanced recovery is feasible and safe after major upper gastrointestinal surgery.

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

Background

Open esophagectomy (OE) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) reduces complications in resectable esophageal cancer. The aim of this study is to explore the superiority of MIO in reducing complications and in-hospital mortality than OE.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Wanfang, and Wiley Online Library were thoroughly searched. Odds ratio (OR)/weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess the strength of association.

Results

Fifty-seven studies containing 15,790 cases of resectable esophageal cancer were included. MIO had less intraoperative blood loss, short hospital stay, and high operative time (P < 0.05) than OE. MIO also had reduced incidence of total complications; (OR = 0.700, 95% CI = 0.626 ~ 0.781, P_V < 0.05), pulmonary complications (OR = 0.527, 95% CI = 0431 ~ 0.645, P_V < 0.05), cardiovascular complications (OR = 0.770, 95% CI = 0.681 ~ 0.872, P_V < 0.05), and surgical technology related (STR) complications (OR = 0.639, 95% CI = 0.522 ~ 0.781, P_V < 0.05), as well as lower in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.668, 95% CI = 0.539 ~ 0.827, P_V < 0.05). However, the number of harvested lymph nodes, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, gastrointestinal complications, anastomotic leak (AL), and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (RLNP) had no significant difference.

Conclusions

MIO is superior to OE in terms of perioperative complications and in-hospital mortality.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

Background and objectives

The safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in comparison with the open esophagectomy (OE) remain uncertain in esophageal cancer treatment. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes of the two surgical modalities.

Methods

Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov with the following index words: “esophageal cancer”, “VATS”, “MIE”, “thoracoscopic esophagectomy”, and “open esophagectomy” for relative studies that compared the effects between MIE and OE. Random-effect models were used, and heterogeneity was assessed.

Results

A total of 20 studies were included in the analysis, consisting of four randomized controlled trials and 16 prospective studies. MIE has reduced operative blood loss (P=0.0009) but increased operation time (P=0.009) in comparison with OE. Patients get less respiratory complications (risk ratio =0.74, 95% CI =0.58–0.94, P=0.01) and better overall survival (hazard ratio =0.54, 95% CI =0.42–0.70, P<0.00001) in the MIE group than the OE group. No statistical difference was observed between the two groups in terms of lymph node harvest, R0 resection, and other major complications.

Conclusion

MIE is a better choice for esophageal cancer because patients undergoing MIE may benefit from reduced blood loss, less respiratory complications, and also improved overall survival condition compared with OE. However, more randomized controlled trials are still needed to verify these differences.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic digestive surgery: Present and future directions

Laparoscopic surgery is applied today worldwide to most digestive procedures. In some of them, such as cholecystectomy, Nissen's fundoplication or obesity surgery, laparoscopy has become the standard in practice. In others, such as colon or gastric resection, the laparoscopic approach is frequently used and its usefulness is unquestionable. More complex procedures, such as esophageal, liver or pancreatic resections are, however, more infrequently performed, due to the high grade of skill necessary. As a result, there is less clinical evidence to support its implementation. In the recent years, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has been increasingly applied, again with little evidence for comparison with the conventional laparoscopic approach. This review will focus on the complex digestive procedures as well as those whose use in standard practice could be more controversial. Also novel robot-assisted procedures will be updated.

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy in prone versus lateral decubitus position: A comparative study

BACKGROUND

Thoracoscopic oesophageal mobilisation during a minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIE) is most commonly performed with the patient placed in the lateral decubitus position (LDP). The prone position (PP) for thoracoscopic oesophageal mobilisation has been proposed as an alternative.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective, comparative study designed to compare early outcomes following a minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer in LDP and in PP.

RESULTS

During the study period, between January 2011 and February 2014, 104 patients underwent an oesophagectomy for cancer. Of these, 42 were open procedures (transhiatal and transthoracic oesophagectomy) and 62 were minimally invasive. The study group included patients who underwent thoracolaparoscopic oesophagectomy in LDP (n = 23) and in PP (n = 25). The median age of the study population was 55 (24-71) years, and there were 25 males. Twenty-one (21) patients had tumours in the middle third of the oesophagus, 24 in the lower third, and 3 arising from the gastro-oesophageal junction. The most common histology was squamous cell cancer (85.4%). The median duration of surgery was similar in the two groups; however, the estimated median intraoperative blood loss was less in the PP group [200 (50-400) mL vs 300 (100-600) mL; P = 0.01)]. In the post-operative period, 26.1% patients in the LDP group and 8% in the PP group (8%) developed respiratory complications. The incidence of other post-operative complications, including cervical oesophagogastric anastomosis, hoarseness of voice and chylothorax, was not different in the two groups. The T stage of the tumour was similar in the two groups, with the majority (37) having T3 disease. A mean of 8 lymph nodes (range 2-33) were retrieved in the LDP group, and 17.5 (range 5-41) lymph nodes were retrieved in the PP group (P = 0.0004). The number of patients with node-positive disease was also higher in the PP group (19 vs 10, P = 0.037).

CONCLUSION

MIE in the PP is an effective alternative to LDP. The exposure obtained is excellent even without the need for a complete lung collapse, thereby obviating the need for a double-lumen endotracheal tube. A more meticulous dissection can be performed resulting in a higher lymph nodal yield.

Does minimally invasive oesophagectomy provide a benefit in hospital length of stay when compared with open oesophagectomy?

A best evidence topic in thoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: 'in patients undergoing oesophagectomy, does a minimally invasive approach convey a benefit in hospital length of stay (LOS), when compared to an open approach?' A total of 647 papers were identified, using an a priori defined search strategy; 24 papers represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date, country of publication, patient group, study type, relevant outcomes and key results are tabulated. Of the studies identified, data from two randomized controlled trials were available. The first randomized study compared the use of open thoracotomy and laparotomy versus thoracoscopy and laparoscopy. Those undergoing minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) left hospital on average 3 days earlier than those treated with the open oesophagectomy (OO) technique (P = 0.044). The other randomized trial, which compared thoracotomy with thoracoscopy and laparoscopy, demonstrated a reduction of 1.8 days in the LOS when employing the MIO technique (P < 0.001). With the addition of the remaining 22 non-randomized studies, comprising 3 prospective and 19 retrospective cohort studies, which are heterogeneous with regard to their design, study populations and outcomes; data are available representing 3173 MIO and 25 691 OO procedures. In total, 13 studies (including the randomized trials) demonstrate a significant reduction in hospital LOS associated with MIO; 10 suggest no significant difference between techniques; and only 1 suggests a significantly greater length of stay associated with MIO. The only two randomized trials comparing MIO and OO demonstrated a reduction in length of stay in the MIO group, without compromising survival or increasing complication rates. All bar one of the non-randomized studies demonstrated either a significant reduction in length of stay with MIO or no difference. The benefit in reduced length of stay was not at the cost of worsened survival or increased complications, and conversion rates in all studies were low.

Combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: a meta-analysis of outcomes

OBJECTIVES

At present there is controversy regarding the optimal surgical method for esophageal cancer. Specifically, whether combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy is superior to open esophagectomy with respect to the surgical wound, perioperative morbidities and mortality, and the overall survival rate is of great concern. This article aimed to compare thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy on the perioperative morbidities and long-term survival.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases were searched for relevant studies comparing combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy with open esophagectomy using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards. Odds ratios were extracted to give pooled estimates of the perioperative effect of the two surgical procedures. Hazard ratios were extracted to compare overall survival between the two surgical procedures.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies involving 1549 patients were included in this meta-analysis. We found that patients that underwent combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy had lower total complication rates (relative risk 1.20; 95 % CI 1.08-1.34; p = 0.0009), wound infection rates, pulmonary complications, and less intraoperative blood loss. Moreover, our study also showed combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy did not compromise the 5-year survival rate (hazard risk 0.920; 95 % CI 0.720-1.176; p = 0.505) and even improved 2-year survival rate. The 30-day mortality and other common morbidities, including anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stricture, pulmonary infection, chylothorax, arrhythmia, or recurrent laryngeal nerve injury, were not significantly different between combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy and traditional open esophagectomy (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy is a feasible and reliable surgical procedure that can achieve uncompromising long-term survival rates and reduce perioperative complications.

Evidence-Based Operative Details in Esophageal Cancer Treatment: Surgical Approach, Lymphadenectomy, Anastomosis

Background

This review depicts surgical treatment strategies in the management of esophageal cancer under the focus of evidence-based medicine. The main emphasis lies on technical details, i.e. surgical approach, lymphadenectomy, and current techniques of anastomosis.

Methods

The current literature on operative details in esophageal cancer treatment was reviewed. Surgical approaches and different techniques of anastomotic reconstruction utilizing a gastric tube were compared. The grade of evidence regarding the necessity and extent of lymphadenectomy was discussed.

Results

There is no level-1 evidence-based difference regarding the surgical approach for esophagectomy. The preferred anastomosis site is intrathoracic compared to the neck. Extended lymphadenectomy is still imperative in esophagectomy although neoadjuvant protocols might also result in a downstaging effect of lymph nodes. Neoadjuvant regimens have no negative influence on complication rate and anastomotic integrity.

Conclusion

A tailored interdisciplinary approach to the patients' physiology and esophageal cancer stage is the most important factor that influences operative outcome and oncological results after esophagectomy.

Impact of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical treatment of esophageal cancer is associated to a high morbidity and mortality rate. The open transthoracic or transhiatal esophagectomy are considerably invasive procedures and have been associated to high rates of complications and operative mortality. In this way, minimally invasive esophageal surgery has been suggested as an alternative to the classic procedures because would produce improvement in clinical longterm postoperative outcomes.

AIM

To assess survival, mortality and morbidity results of esophagectomy due to esophageal cancer submitted to minimally invasive techniques and compare them to results published in international literature.

METHOD

An observational, prospective study. Between 2003 and 2012, 69 patients were submitted to a minimally invasive esophagectomy due to cancer. It was recorded postoperative morbidity and mortality according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. The survival rate was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method. The number of lymph nodes obtained during the lymph node dissection, as an index of the quality of the surgical technique, was analysed.

RESULTS

63.7% of patients had minor complications (type I-II Clavien Dindo), while nine (13%) required surgical re-exploration. The most common postoperative complication corresponded to leak of the cervical anastomosis seen in 44 (63.7%) patients but without clinical repercusion, only two of them required reoperation. The mortality rate was 4.34%, and reoperation was necessary in nine (13%) cases. The average survival time was 22.59 ± 25.38 months, with the probability of a 3-year survival rate estimated at 30%. The number of resected lymph nodes was 17.17 ± 9.62.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive techniques have lower morbidity and mortality rate, very satisfactory lymphnodes resection and similar long term outcomes in term of quality of life and survival compared to results observed after open surgery.

Laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy improves hospital outcomes and reduces cost: a single-institution analysis of laparoscopic-assisted and open techniques

BACKGROUND

Several case series have demonstrated that laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy (LTHE) is associated with favorable perioperative outcomes compared to historical data for open transhiatal esophagectomy (OTHE). Contemporaneous evaluation of open and laparoscopic THE is rare, limiting meaningful comparison of techniques.

METHODS

All patients who underwent OTHE (n = 32) and LTHE (n = 41) during the introduction of the latter procedure at our institution (1/2012-4/2014) were identified, and patient charts were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Indications for operation included 69 patients with esophageal malignancy (adenocarcinoma: 64; squamous cell carcinoma: 4; melanoma: 1) and 4 patients with benign disease. There were no significant differences in clinicopathologic variables between OTHE and LTHE cohorts, except for an increased rate of cardiovascular disease in the LTHE cohort (p = 0.04). There was no significant difference in median operative time or operative complications, yet LTHE was associated with a lower incidence of intraoperative blood transfusion (p < 0.01). There were no 30-day mortalities. LTHE was associated with a reduced time to reach 24-h tube feeding goals (p = 0.02), shorter length of hospital stay (p = 0.01), and 6 % reduced median direct cost (p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in rates of major perioperative morbidities. Patients were followed for a median of 11.0 months during which there were no significant differences between cohorts in disease-free survival or overall survival.

CONCLUSION

When compared to OTHE, LTHE improves surgical outcomes and decreases hospital costs; short-term oncologic outcomes are similar. LTHE is preferable to OTHE in patients requiring transhiatal esophagectomy.

Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Compared with open esophagectomy (OE), minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) proves to have clear benefits in reducing the risk of pulmonary complications for patients with resectable esophageal cancer. The objectives of our study were to explore the superiority of MIE in reducing the occurrence of anastomotic leakages (ALs) when compared to OE.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the superiority of MIE on the occurrence of ALs over OE, by searching many sources (through December, 2014) such as Medline, Embase, Wiley Online Library, and Cochrane Library. Fixed-effects model was used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) to quantify associations between OE and MIE groups. Cochran’s Q and I² statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity among studies.

Results

Among a total of 43 studies involving 5537 patients included in the meta-analysis, 2527 (45.6 %) cases underwent MIE and 3010 (54.4 %) cases underwent OE. Compared to patients undergoing OE, patients undergoing MIE did not have statistical significance in reduced occurrence of ALs (OR = 0.97, 95 % CI = 0.80–1.17). Insignificant reduced occurrence of ALs was not associated with anastomotic location (OR = 0.90, 95 % CI = 0.71–1.13) or anastomotic procedure (OR = 1.02, 95 % CI = 0.79–1.30).

Conclusions

More proofs are needed to clarify the strengths or weaknesses of MIE in preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer. A largely randomized, controlled trial should be undertaken to resolve this contentious issue urgently.

Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Management of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is rapidly increasing in incidence in Western cultures. Barrett's esophagus is the presumed precursor lesion for this cancer. Several other risk factors for this cancer have been described, including chronic heartburn, tobacco use, white race, and obesity. Despite these known associations, most patients with EAC present with symptoms of dysphagia from late-stage tumors; only a small number of patients are identified by screening and surveillance programs. Diagnostic analysis of EAC usually commences with upper endoscopy followed by cross-sectional imaging. Endoscopic ultrasonography is useful to assess the local extent of disease as well as the involvement of regional lymph nodes. T1a EAC may be treated endoscopically, and some patients with T1b disease may also benefit from endoscopic therapy. Locally advanced disease is generally managed with esophagectomy, often accompanied by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy. The prognosis is based on tumor stage; patients with T1a tumors have an excellent prognosis, whereas few patients with advanced disease have long-term survival.

Superiority of Minimally Invasive Oesophagectomy in Reducing In-Hospital Mortality of Patients with Resectable Oesophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Compared with open oesophagectomy (OE), minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) proves to have benefits in reducing the risk of pulmonary complications for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. However, it is unknown whether MIO has superiority in reducing the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM).

Objective

The objective of this meta-analysis was to explore the effect of MIO vs. OE on the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM).

Data Sources

Sources such as Medline (through December 31, 2014), Embase (through December 31, 2014), Wiley Online Library (through December 31, 2014), and the Cochrane Library (through December 31, 2014) were searched.

Study Selection

Data of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials related to MIO versus OE were included.

Interventions

Eligible studies were those that reported patients who underwent MIO procedure. The control group included patients undergoing conventional OE.

Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods

Fixed or random -effects models were used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) or relative risks (RRs) for quantification of associations. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated by using Cochran’s Q and I² statistics.

Results

A total of 48 studies involving 14,311 cases of resectable oesophageal cancer were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to patients undergoing OE, patients undergoing MIO had statistically reduced occurrence of IHM (OR=0.69, 95%CI =0.55 -0.86). Patients undergoing MIO also had significantly reduced incidence of pulmonary complications (PCs) (RR=0.73, 95%CI = 0.63-0.86), pulmonary embolism (PE) (OR=0.71, 95%CI= 0.51-0.99) and arrhythmia (OR=0.79, 95%CI = 0.68-0.92). Non-significant reductions were observed among the included studies in the occurrence of anastomotic leak (AL) (OR=0.93, 95%CI =0.78-1.11), or Gastric Tip Necrosis (GTN) (OR=0.89, 95%CI =0.54-1.49).

Limitation

Most of the included studies were non-randomized case-control studies, with a diversity of study designs, demographics of participants and surgical intervention.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) has superiority over open oesophagectomy (OE) in terms of the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM) and should be the first-choice surgical procedure in esophageal surgery.

Early experience and lessons learned in a new minimally invasive esophagectomy program

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is gaining increasing popularity in the treatment of esophageal cancer. In fact, while surgical and oncologic outcomes are not inferior to those achieved through a traditional open approach, patients undergoing MIE benefit from shorter length of stay, lesser pain and prompter recovery. This technique is, however, highly challenging, and the development of a MIE program, even in the setting of a tertiary center, requires time and progressive honing of surgical skills.

METHODS

We use a minimally invasive Ivor Lewis approach. The abdominal phase of the procedure includes complete celiac lymphadenectomy and tubularization of the stomach, which will constitute the neo-esophagus. The video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery portion of the operation takes place in left lateral decubitus and allows for optimal thoracic lymphadenectomy and anastomosis.

RESULTS

From October 2011 to January 2015, we treated 52 patients with the above-described procedure. The evolution of our anastomotic technique included a first group of circular stapled anastomosis with Orvil™ and 3.5-mm EEA™ (n = 16 patients), subsequently abandoned in favor of a linear anastomosis (n = 12), before going back to the Orvil™ coupled with 4.8-mm EEA™ (n = 22) in more recent times. There were also an additional two anastomoses that did not fall under any of these categories. We experienced two postoperative deaths. The overall leak rate was 14%, but fell down to 4% in the last group. Median LOS was 9 days. Lymph node retrieval was adequate throughout the whole series.

CONCLUSIONS

Developing a MIE program requires a significant learning curve before the results plateau. Only once a technique of choice is refined and mastered, the advantages granted by MIE become apparent.

Totally minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy with single-utility incision video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for treatment of mid-lower esophageal cancer

The study aims to evaluate the safety and availability of totally minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (MIIE) with single-utility incision video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. Forty-one patients with mid-lower thoracic esophageal cancer were prospectively treated with totally MIIE. Two stages of laparoscopic-thoracoscopic procedures were performed. The first 29 patients were treated with four-port video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (Group 1); the others were treated with single-utility incision video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (Group 2). Short-term clinicopathological outcomes were examined. All patients had negative tumor margins and were pathologically staged from T1N0M0 to T3N2M0. Among Group 1, there was one conversion to open surgery. The mean duration of surgery was 268.4 ± 37.8 minutes, and mean blood loss was 207.2 ± 74.1 mL without significant differences between groups. The average thoracic or abdominal lymph node yield was 12.6 ± 7.1 or 6 ± 5.8, respectively. The median postoperative hospital stay was 7 days. No mortalities occurred. Minor morbidity complicated by late-stage gastroparesis occurred in two patients (4.9%) after discharge. Major morbidities, including intestinal obstruction and anastomotic leakage, occurred in three patients (7.3%) after discharge. Among Group 2, the average operative duration was 275.4 ± 31.2 minutes, and the mean blood loss was 220 ± 94.9 mL. One patient developed late-stage anastomotic leakage. The average thoracic or abdominal lymph node yield was 14.7 ± 8.8 and 6.3 ± 5.7, respectively. No statistically significant differences were identified between Group 1 and Group 2. MIIE with single-utility incision video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is feasible in patients with mid-lower thoracic esophageal cancer without compromising the extent of surgical resection and perioperative outcomes.

Predicting blood transfusion in patients undergoing minimally invasive oesophagectomy

AIM

To evaluate predictors of allogenic blood transfusion requirements in patients undergoing minimal invasive oesophagectomy at a tertiary high volume centre for oesophago-gastric surgery.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing minimal access oesophagectomy in our department between January 2010 and December 2011. Patients were divided into two groups depending on whether they required a blood transfusion at any time during their index admission. Factors that have been shown to influence perioperative blood transfusion requirements in major surgery were included in the analysis. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the impact of patient and perioperative characteristics on transfusion requirements during the index admission.

RESULTS

A total of 80 patients underwent minimal access oesophagectomy, of which 61 patients had a laparoscopic assisted oesophagectomy and 19 patients had a minimal invasive oesophagectomy. Perioperative blood transfusion was required in 28 patients at any time during hospital admission. On binary logistic regression analysis, a lower preoperative haemoglobin concentration (p < 0.01), suffering a significant complication (p < 0.005) and laparoscopic assisted oesophagectomy (p < 0.05) were independent predictors of blood transfusion requirements.

DISCUSSION

It has been reported that requirement for blood transfusion can affect long-term outcomes in oesophageal cancer resection. Two factors which could be addressed preoperatively; haemoglobin concentration and type of oesophageal resection, may be valuable in predicting blood transfusions in patients undergoing minimally invasive oesophagectomy.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis revealed that preoperative haemoglobin concentration, occurrence of significant complications and type of minimal access oesophagectomy predicted blood transfusion requirements in the patient population examined.