Minimally Invasive Versus Open McKeown for Patients with Esophageal Cancer: A Retrospective Study

National trends in technique use for esophagectomy: Does primary surgeon specialty matter?

BACKGROUND

Cardiothoracic surgeons and general surgeons (including surgical oncologists) perform most esophagectomies. The purpose of this study was to explore whether specialty-driven differences in surgical techniques and the use of minimally invasive surgical approaches exist and are associated with postoperative outcomes after esophagectomy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program esophagectomy-targeted participant user file (2016-2018). Patients who underwent esophagectomy were sorted into cardiothoracic and general surgeon cohorts based on surgeon specialty. Perioperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes were compared using the χ2 analysis or independent t test. Multivariable logistic regression controlling for perioperative variables was performed to generate risk-adjusted rates of postoperative outcomes compared by surgical specialty.

RESULTS

Of 3,247 patients included, 1,792 (55.2%) underwent esophagectomy by cardiothoracic surgeons and 1,455 (44.5%) by general surgeons as the primary surgeon. Cardiothoracic surgeons were more likely to use traditional minimally invasive surgical (P = .0004) or open approaches (P < .0001) and less likely to use robotic (P = .04) or a hybrid robotic and traditional approaches (P < .0001). Cardiothoracic surgeons performed more Ivor Lewis esophagectomies and fewer transhiatal and McKeown esophagectomies (P < .0001). After risk adjustment, there were no differences in rates of postesophagectomy complications, such as anastomotic leaks or positive margins, between cardiothoracic surgeons and general surgeons (all P > .05). However, cardiothoracic surgeons were more likely than general surgeons to treat anastomotic leaks with surgery rather than procedural interventions (odds ratio = 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.52).

CONCLUSION

Cardiothoracic surgeons and general surgeons use minimally invasive surgical subtypes differently when performing esophagectomy. However, there were no risk-adjusted differences in postoperative complications when compared by surgical subspecialty. Esophagectomy is being performed safely by surgeons with different specialties and training pathways.

Efficacy and Quality of Life with the Modified Versus the Traditional Thoraco-Laparoscopic McKeown Procedure for Esophageal Cancer: A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and postoperative quality of life for patients with esophageal cancer treated by either the modified or the traditional thoracolaparoscopic McKeown procedure.

METHODS

This retrospective case-control study included 269 patients with esophageal cancer admitted to three medical centers in China from February 2020 to August 2022. The patients were divided according to surgical method into the layered hand-sewn end-to-end invagination anastomosis group (modified group) and the traditional hand anastomosis group (traditional group). Propensity score-matching (PSM) was used to maintain balance and comparability between the two groups.

RESULTS

The differences in age and tumor location between the patients in the traditional and modified groups were statistically significant. After PSM, the aforementioned factors were statistically insignificant. After PSM, each group had 101 patients. The modified group showed the greater advantage in terms of postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.036), incidence of anastomotic leak (P = 0.009), and incidence of gastroesophageal reflux (P < 0.001), and the difference was statistically significant. The results of the Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Quality of Life Questionnaire Oesophageal Cancer Module 18 (QLQ-OES18) scales showed that the modified group also had the advantage over the traditional group in terms of physical function, overall health status, loss of appetite, eating, reflux, obstruction, and loss of appetite scores at the first and third months after surgery.

CONCLUSION

The modified thoraco-laparoscopic McKeown procedure is a safe and effective surgical approach that can significantly reduce the incidence of postoperative anastomotic leak and gastroesophageal reflux, shorten the postoperative hospital stay, and improve the postoperative quality of life for patients with esophageal cancer.

Two-rope method for dissecting esophagus in McKeown MIE

Objective

Minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy (McKeown MIE) is performed at many hospitals in esophageal cancer(EC) treatment. However, secure and quick methods for dissecting the esophagus and dissecting lymph nodes in this surgery are lacking. This study introduces a simple, secure and feasible esophagus dissecting technique named two-rope method. Two mobile traction ropes are placed around the esophagus and we tow these ropes to free the esophagus, dissect the lymph nodes, and decrease the operative trauma.

Materials and Methods

Retrospective analysis was performed on 112 patients who underwent McKeown MIE in our center from January 2019 to September 2021. They were assigned into two groups based on the method of dissecting the esophagus: Group A (two-rope method, 45 cases) and Group B (regular method, 67 cases). Operation time, thoracic operation time, the number of dissected thoracic lymph nodes, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups after propensity score matching.

Results

Using 1:1 nearest neighbor matching, we successfully matched 41 pairs of patients. Operation time, thoracic operation time, and the duration (ac to as) was significantly shorter and the size of the abdominal incision was significantly smaller in the Group A than Group B (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of dissected thoracic lymph nodes, pulmonary infection, anastomotic leak, recurrent laryngeal (RLN) injury, and chylothorax between the two groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Two-rope method to free the esophagus and dissect thoracic lymph nodes in McKeown MIE has significant advantages compared with the regular method. The technique is, therefore suitable for widespread adoption by surgeons.

Uniportal-VATS vs. open McKeown esophagectomy: Surgical and long-term oncological outcomes

Background

Till now there are very few reports about surgical results of Uniportal-VATS esophagectomy and no one about long-term outcomes. This study is the first comparing surgical and oncological outcomes of Uniportal-VATS with open McKeown esophagectomy, with the largest reported series and longest oncological follow-up.

Methods

The prospectively collected clinical, surgical and oncological data of 75 patients, undergone McKeown esophagectomy at our Thoracic Surgery Department, from January 2012 to August 2022, were retrospectively analyzed. Nineteen patients underwent esophagectomy by thoracotomy and reconstruction according to McKeown technique while 56 by Uniportal-VATS approach. Gastric tubulization was performed totally laparoscopic or through a mini-laparatomic access and cervical anastomosis was made according to Orringer's technique.

Results

The mean operative thoracic time was similar in both accesses (102.34 ± 15.21 min in Uniportal-VATS vs. 115.56 ± 23.12 min in open, p: 0.646), with a comparable number of mediastinal nodes retrieved (Uniportal-VATS:13.40 ± 8.12 vs. open:15.00 ± 6.86, p: 0.275). No case needed conversion from VATS to open. The learning curve in Uniportal-VATS was completed after 34 cases, while the Mastery was reached after 40. Both approaches were comparable in terms of minor post-operative complications (like pneumonia, lung atelectasis, anemization, atrial fibrillation, anastomotic-leak, left vocal cord palsy, chylothorax), while the number of re-operation for major complications (bleeding or mediastinitis) was higher in open group (21.0% vs. 3.6%, p: 0.04). Both techniques were also effective in terms of surgical radicality and local recurrence but VATS approach allowed a significantly lower chest tube length (11.89 ± 9.55 vs. 25.82 ± 24.37 days, p: 0.003) and post-operative stay (15.63 ± 11.69 vs. 25.53 ± 23.33, p: 0.018). The 30-day mortality for complications related to surgery was higher in open group (p: 0.002). The 2-, 5- and 8-year survival of the whole series was 72%, 50% and 33%, respectively. Combined 2- and 5-year OS in Uniportal-VATS group was 76% and 47% vs. 62% and 62% in open group, respectively (Log-rank, p: 0.286; Breslow-Wilcoxon: p: 0.036). No difference in DFS was recorded between the two approaches (5 year-DFS in Uniportal-VATS: 86% vs. 72%, p: 0.298). At multivariate analysis, only pathological stage independently affected OS (p: 0.02), not the surgical approach (p: 0.276).

Conclusions

Uniportal-VATS seems to be a safe, feasible and effective technique for performing McKeown esophagectomy, with equivalent surgical and long-term oncological results to standard thoracotomy, but with a faster and unharmed recovery, and a quite short learning curve.

Minimally invasive surgery is associated with decreased postoperative complications after esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Although some studies have compared esophagectomy outcomes by technique or approach, there is opportunity to strengthen our knowledge surrounding these outcomes. We aimed to perform a comprehensive comparison of esophagectomy postoperative complications.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2007-2018). Esophagectomies were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes and grouped by operative technique (Ivor Lewis, transhiatal, McKeown) and surgical approach (minimally invasive vs open esophagectomy). Twelve postoperative complications were compared. Significant complications underwent risk adjustment using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Analysis was performed on 13,457 esophagectomies: 11,202 (83.2%) open and 2255 (16.8%) minimally invasive. There were 7611 (56.6%) Ivor Lewis, 3348 (24.9%) transhiatal, and 2498 (18.6%) McKeown procedures. There were significant differences among the surgical techniques in 6 of 12 risk-adjusted complications. When comparing the outcomes of minimally invasive techniques, there were only significant differences in 2 of 12 complications: overall morbidity (minimally invasive Ivor Lewis 30.5%, minimally invasive transhiatal 43.4%, minimally invasive McKeown 40.3%, P = .0009) and infections (minimally invasive Ivor Lewis 15.4%, minimally invasive transhiatal 26.0%, minimally invasive McKeown 25.3%, P = .0003). Patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery were less likely to have overall morbidity (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.75), respiratory complications (odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.87), urinary tract infection (odds ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.88), renal complications (odds ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.81), bleeding complications (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.43), and nonhome discharge (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.64), and had shorter length of stay (9.7 vs 13.2 days, P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy have lower rates of postoperative complications regardless of esophagectomy techniques. The minimally invasive approach was associated with reduced complication variance among 3 common esophagectomy techniques.

The safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy combined with non-tube nofasting fast-track surgery for esophageal carcinoma

Our non-tube no fasting (early oral feeding and no nasogastric tube) fast-track surgery (FTS) was safe and effective to combine with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy. In addition, the two groups were similar in terms of the recovery time, hospital discharge day, and early resumption of oral feeding.

As time goes by–developments in surgery for esophageal cancer in the new millennium

Background

In the last two decades, both treatment options and epidemiological features of cancer have changed. We studied the influence of related parameters on the outcome of patients undergoing resection for esophageal carcinoma.

Methods

We analyzed 499 consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy for carcinoma since January 2000, comparing 2000–2010 with 2011–2021 and examining changes over time.

Results

The percentage of men (87.9 vs. 86.9%; p = 0.74) in the two groups was unchanged, whereas mean age increased significantly from 60.8 to 65.2 years (p = 0.000). There was a trend towards an increase of adenocarcinoma (gamma = 0.120, ASE = 0.055). Despite significantly increasing use of induction chemoradiotherapy (p = 0.000) from 7.14% in 2000 to 68.9% in 2021 the distribution of pT, pN stage, grading and the rate of positive lateral resection margins remained unchanged. When comparing the two periods, the overall 30-day mortality was 4.4 vs. 4.2% (p = 0.56), recurrence-free survival was 36.9 vs. 38% at 60 months and 33.9 vs. 36.4% at 120 months (p = 0.93). Tumor-associated survival was 41.1 vs. 45% at 60 months and 35.5 vs. 38.7% at 120 months (p = 0.78). None of the survival rates differed significantly. A multivariable analysis of year of surgery, age, sex, histological subtype, grading, pT, pN, lateral resection margin, and induction therapy showed that only higher pT (p = 0.01), positive pN (p = 0.000), positive lateral margin (p = 0.003), squamous cell carcinoma (p = 0.04) and higher grading (p = 0.026) had a statistically significant, independent, negative influence on prognosis.

Conclusion

Optimized noninvasive and invasive therapeutic modalities have produced only marginal improvement in the prognosis of esophageal cancer within the last two decades.