Optimal mobilization of the stomach and the best place in the gastric tube for intrathoracic anastomosis

Hybrid laparoscopic versus fully robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: an international propensity-score matched analysis of perioperative outcome

BACKGROUND

Currently, little is known regarding the optimal technique for the abdominal phase of RAMIE. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in both the abdominal and thoracic phase (full RAMIE) compared to laparoscopy during the abdominal phase (hybrid laparoscopic RAMIE).

METHODS

This retrospective propensity-score matched analysis of the International Upper Gastrointestinal International Robotic Association (UGIRA) database included 807 RAMIE procedures with intrathoracic anastomosis between 2017 and 2021 from 23 centers.

RESULTS

After propensity-score matching, 296 hybrid laparoscopic RAMIE patients were compared to 296 full RAMIE patients. Both groups were equal regarding intraoperative blood loss (median 200 ml versus 197 ml, p = 0.6967), operational time (mean 430.3 min versus 417.7 min, p = 0.1032), conversion rate during abdominal phase (2.4% versus 1.7%, p = 0.560), radical resection (R0) rate (95.6% versus 96.3%, p = 0.8526) and total lymph node yield (mean 30.4 versus 29.5, p = 0.3834). The hybrid laparoscopic RAMIE group showed higher rates of anastomotic leakage (28.0% versus 16.6%, p = 0.001) and Clavien Dindo grade 3a or higher (45.3% versus 26.0%, p < 0.001). The length of stay on intensive care unit (median 3 days versus 2 days, p = 0.0005) and in-hospital (median 15 days versus 12 days, p < 0.0001) were longer for the hybrid laparoscopic RAMIE group.

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid laparoscopic RAMIE and full RAMIE were oncologically equivalent with a potential decrease of postoperative complications and shorter (intensive care) stay after full RAMIE.

Contrast-Enhanced Radiologic Evaluation of Gastric Conduit Emptying After Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Nasogastric tube (NGT) insertion is the standard of care in many hospitals after esophagectomy for gastric conduit decompression. An upper gastrointestinal contrast passage evaluation (UGI-CE) is a diagnostic test to evaluate passage through the gastric conduit. The authors hypothesized that introducing routine UGI-CE after esophagectomy results in earlier removal of the NGT and resumption of oral intake.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated two consecutive series of patients undergoing esophagectomy, one before (control group) and one after the introduction of a routine UGI-CE on postoperative day (POD) 3 or 4 (UGI-CE group). If contrast passage was found on the UGI-CE, the NGT was capped and removed. In the control group, the NGT was routinely capped and removed on day 5 after surgery. The primary outcome was the POD on which oral diet was initiated. The secondary outcomes were the day of NGT removal, NGT reinsertions, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Each cohort included 74 patients. In the UGI-CE group, the contrast test was performed on median POD 3.5 (IQR, 3-4). The median day of NGT removal, initiation of clear liquids, and full liquid and solid intake was 1 to 2 days earlier in the UGI-CE group than in the control group (i.e. POD 4, 4, 5, and 6 vs. POD 5, 5, 6.5, and 8; all p < 0.001). The study found no significant differences in NGT reinsertions, pneumonias, anastomotic leakages, or hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

The routine use of a UGI-CE after esophagectomy led to earlier removal of the NGT and earlier resumption of oral intake.

Optimal Perioperative Pain Management in Esophageal Surgery: An Evaluation of Paravertebral Analgesia

Background

For esophagectomy, thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is the standard of care for perioperative pain management. Although effective, TEA is associated with moderate to serious adverse events such as hypotension and neurologic complications. Paravertebral analgesia (PVA) may be a safe alternative. The authors hypothesized that TEA and PVA are similar in efficacy for pain treatment in thoracolaparoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study compared TEA with PVA in two consecutive series of 25 thoracolaparoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomies. In this study, TEA consisted of continuous epidural bupivacaine and sufentanil infusion with a patient-controlled bolus function. In PVA, the catheter was inserted by the surgeon under thoracoscopic vision during surgery. Administration of PVA consisted of continuous paravertebral bupivacaine infusion after a bolus combined with patient-controlled analgesia using intravenous morphine. The primary outcome was the median highest recorded Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS) during the 3 days after surgery. The secondary outcomes were vasopressor consumption, fluid administration, and length of hospital stay.

Results

In both groups, the median highest recorded NRS was 4 or lower during the first three postoperative days. The patients with PVA had a higher overall NRS (mean difference, 0.75; 95% confidence interval 0.49–1.44). No differences were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes.

Conclusion

For the patients undergoing thoracolaparoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, TEA was superior to PVA, as measured by NRS during the first three postoperative days. However, both modes provided adequate analgesia, with a median highest recorded NRS of 4 or lower. These results could form the basis for a randomized controlled trial.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-10172-1.

Application of mediastinal drainage tube in intrathoracic esophageal anastomotic leakage for early diagnosis and effective treatment: a retrospective study

Background

Intrathoracic esophageal anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most fatal complications after esophagectomy. In this study, we placed an additional drainage tube in the esophagus bed and evaluated its effect in early diagnosis and treatment of AL.

Methods

From January 2010 to August 2020, 312 patients with esophageal or cardia carcinoma underwent esophageal resection with intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis. A total of 138 patients with only one pleural drainage tube were divided into the “Control Group” and 174 patients with a pleural drainage tube and an additional mediastinal drainage tube (MDT) were divided into the “Tube Group”. For all patients, the incidence of postoperative AL, the time to diagnosis, time to recovery, and patient outcome were analyzed.

Results

No significant differences were observed in the AL rate (P = 0.837) and postoperative pain between two groups. However, in the Tube Group, almost all the patients were diagnosed prior to the appearance of hyperpyrexia, which was considered as the earliest and most common symptom after AL. In the Tube Group, a significant decrease was observed in the incidence of incurable fistula, which required re-operation or variable treatments under gastroscopy when compared to the Control Group (P = 0.032). Finally, patients in the Tube Group showed reduced post AL hospital day (P = 0.015) and a lower mortality, however, when compared to the Control Group, no significant differences were observed (P = 0.188).

Conclusions

Placement of an MDT does not prevent AL, but it is an effective approach for earlier diagnosis of AL and facilitates fistula healing and patient recovery.

Merendino Resection vs. Transhiatal Gastric Conduit After Resection of the Cardia and the Gastroesophageal Junction

BACKGROUND

Reconstruction after combined cardia resection and removal of the gastroesophageal junction can be carried out by the Merendino procedure or via a gastric conduit. This study compares postoperative complications and quality of life for both approaches.

METHODS

All patients who underwent Merendino or gastric conduit reconstruction from 2011-2017 were included. Both groups were investigated regarding postoperative length of stay, complications, and gastrointestinal quality of life.

RESULTS

45 patients were identified, of which, 39 remained for analysis: 22 patients in the Merendino group and 17 patients in the gastric conduit group. The median age of patients in the gastric conduit group (71 (53-92) years) was significantly higher than in the Merendino group (58 (19-75) years), P = .0002. Hospital stay was significantly longer in the gastric conduit group (35.9 (11-82) days vs. 18.2 (7-43) days, P = .0299) and incidence of anastomotic leakage was higher (24% vs. 9%, P = .0171). General incidence of complications (Clavien-Dindo) did not vary (P = .1694). However, grade 5 complications only occurred in the Merendino group (n = 1). Evaluation of long-term outcome and quality of life showed dysphagia to only have occurred in the Merendino group (n = 3, 14%).

DISCUSSION

Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages: The Merendino procedure showed reduced incidence of anastomotic leakage and shorter hospital stay but was associated with a higher in-hospital mortality rate. Discrepancies in subgroup populations as well as small patient numbers limit the interpretation of the findings. This study does however provide a first comparison of these surgical approaches and may serve as a basis for further investigation.

State of the art in esophagectomy: robotic assistance in the abdominal phase

Over the years, robot-assisted esophagectomy gained popularity. The current literature focused mainly on robotic assistance in the thoracic phase, whereas the implementation of robotic assistance in the abdominal phase is lagging behind. Advantages of adding a robotic system to the abdominal phase include robotic stapling and the increased surgeon's independency. In terms of short-term outcomes and lymphadenectomy, robotic assistance is at least equal to laparoscopy. Yet high quality evidence to conclude on this topic remains scarce. This review focuses on the evidence of robotic assistance in the abdominal phase of esophagectomy.

Gastrointestinal side effects of upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery

In this chapter, we describe the gastrointestinal side effects of oesophagectomy, gastrectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer, with a focus on long-term functional impairments and their management. Improvements in upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery have led to a growing group of long-term survivors. The invasive nature of these surgeries profoundly alters the upper gastrointestinal anatomy, with lasting implications for long-term function, and how these impairments may be treated. Successfully maintaining a high quality of survivorship requires multidisciplinary approach, with survivorship care plans focused on function as much as the detection of recurrence.

Strategies to prevent anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy and gastric conduit reconstruction

Background

Surgery remains the cornerstone of esophageal cancer treatment but is burdened with high procedure-related morbidity. Anastomotic leakage as the most important surgical complication after esophagectomy is a key indicator for quality in surgical outcome research.

Purpose

The aim of this narrative review is to assess and summarize the current knowledge on prevention of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy and to provide orientation for the reader in this challenging field of surgery.

Conclusions

There are various strategies to reduce postoperative morbidity and to prevent anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy, including adequate patient selection and preparation, and many technical-surgical and anesthesiological details. The scientific evidence regarding those strategies is highly heterogeneous, ranging from expert’s recommendations to randomized controlled trials. This review is intended to serve as an empirical guideline to improve the clinical management of patients undergoing esophagectomy with a special focus on anastomotic leakage prevention.