Updated experiences with minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Unveiling Therapeutic Targets for Esophageal Cancer: A Comprehensive Review

Esophageal cancer is a highly aggressive and deadly disease, ranking as the sixth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Despite advances in treatment, the prognosis remains poor. A multidisciplinary approach is crucial for achieving complete remission, with treatment options varying based on disease stage. Surgical intervention and endoscopic treatment are used for localized cancer, while systemic treatments like chemoradiotherapy and targeted drug therapy play a crucial role. Molecular markers such as HER2 and EGFR can be targeted with drugs like trastuzumab and cetuximab, and immunotherapy drugs like pembrolizumab and nivolumab show promise by targeting immune checkpoint proteins. Epigenetic modifications offer new avenues for targeted therapy. Treatment selection depends on factors like stage, tumor location, and patient health, with post-operative and rehabilitation care being essential. Early diagnosis, appropriate treatment, and supportive care are key to improving outcomes. Continued research is needed to develop effective targeted drugs with minimal side effects. This review serves as a valuable resource for clinicians and researchers dedicated to enhancing esophageal cancer treatment outcomes.

Exploring the learning curve in minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been shown to be superior to open esophagectomy with reduced morbidity, mortality, and comparable lymph node (LN) harvest. However, MIE is technically challenging. This study aims to perform a pooled analysis on the number of cases required to surmount the learning curve (LC), i.e. NLC in MIE. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for articles from inception to June 2022. Inclusion criteria were articles that reported LC in video-assisted MIE (VAMIE) and/or robot-assisted MIE (RAMIE). Poisson means (95% confidence interval [CI]) was used to determine NLC. Negative binomial regression was used for comparative analysis. There were 41 articles with 45 data sets (n = 7755 patients). The majority of tumors were located in the lower esophagus or gastroesophageal junction (66.7%, n = 3962/5939). The majority of data sets on VAMIE (n = 16/26, 61.5%) used arbitrary analysis, while the majority of data sets (n = 14/19, 73.7%) on RAMIE used cumulative sum control chart analysis. The most common outcomes reported were overall operating time (n = 30/45) and anastomotic leak (n = 28/45). Twenty-four data sets (53.3%) reported on LN harvest. The overall NLC was 34.6 (95% CI: 30.4-39.2), 68.5 (95% CI: 64.9-72.4), 27.5 (95% CI: 24.3-30.9), and 35.9 (95% CI: 32.1-40.2) for hybrid VAMIE, total VAMIE, hybrid RAMIE, and total RAMIE, respectively. NLC was significantly lower for total RAMIE compared to total VAMIE (incidence rate ratio: 0.52, P = 0.032). Studies reporting NLC in MIE are heterogeneous. Further studies should clearly define prior surgical experiences and assess long-term oncological outcomes using non-arbitrary analysis.

Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (NST 1502): a multicenter prospective cohort study

Background

Whether minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open esophagectomy (OE) in the treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is still uncertain. Therefore, this multicenter prospective study aimed to compare MIE with OE in postoperative parameters and long-term survival.

Methods

All hospitalized patients with cT1b-3N0-1M0 thoracic ESCC treated by MIE or OE were enrolled from 19 selected centers from April 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018. The propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to minimize the selection bias. The basic clinicopathological characteristics and 3-year overall survival (OS) as well as disease-free survival (DFS) of two groups were compared by R version 3.6.2.

Results

MIE were performed in 1,387 patients and OE in 335 patients. 335 cases in each group were finally matched by PSM, and no significant differences in the essential demographic characteristics were observed between the MIE and OE groups after PSM. Compared with OE, MIE had significantly less intraoperative bleeding, less total drainage volume, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and harvested significantly more lymph nodes (LNs) (all P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the major postoperative complications and death rates between MIE and OE. The 3-year OS and DFS were 77.0% and 68.1% in the MIE group versus 69.3% and 60.9% in the OE group (OS: P = 0.03; DFS: P = 0.09), and the rates were 75.1% and 66.5% in the MIE group versus 66.9% and 58.6% in the OE group for stage cII patients (OS: P = 0.04, DFS: P = 0.09), respectively.

Conclusions

Compared with OE, MIE is a safe and effective treatment approach with similar mortality and morbidity. It has the advantages in harvesting more LNs, improving postoperative recovery and survival of stage cII ESCC patients.

Clinical characteristics and survival of esophageal cancer patients: annual report of the surgical treatment in Shanghai Chest Hospital, 2016

Background

Esophageal cancers present a significant burden of disease and remain one of the most lethal of cancers worldwide, particular in China. Surgical treatment remains the cornerstone of esophageal cancers, and a real-world data from a high-volume esophageal cancer center have guiding significance in evaluation of the current clinical practice. This report describes the clinical characteristics, treatment outcomes, and survival of surgical treatment in patients with esophageal cancer in Shanghai Chest Hospital (SCH).

Methods

All patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer who received esophagectomy or endoscopic resection at SCH in 2016 were included in this study. The baseline characteristics, treatment-related outcomes, and follow-up data were collated from the medical records and a prospectively maintained database. The clinicopathological characteristics, surgical complications, and oncologic outcomes were summarized. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate their survival and Cox regression model was used to estimate the associated risk factors.

Results

In 2016, a total of 546 patients with esophageal cancer received surgical or endoscopic resection at SCH (including 517 esophagectomies and 29 endoscopic resections). Most patients (52.4%) were between 60-69 years old, 79.5% were male, and for more than half of all patients (51.3%), the tumor was located at the middle thoracic esophagus. Overall, 11.0% (60/546) of patients received neoadjuvant therapy and 45.8% (250/546) of patients were treated with adjuvant therapy. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (including thoracoscopy and robot-assisted) was performed in 58.0% of patients and the R0 resection rate was 90.3%. The postoperative 30- and 90-day mortality was 0.73% and 1.1%, respectively. For the esophagectomy cohort, the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 86.5%, 67.8%, 59.9%, 54.5%, 51.8%, and for cancer specific survival (CSS), the rates were 91.8%, 74.2%, 66.6%, 61.2%, and 59.1%, respectively.

Conclusions

Through a standardized surgical procedure, the short- and long-term outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer were acceptable with good safety and oncological control in a high-volume center in China. This study reveals important surgical treatment effects of esophageal cancer patients and contributes to improvement of clinical management and future treatment development.

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.

Learning Curve and Associated Prognosis of Minimally Invasive McKeown Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

The implementation of McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is associated with a steep learning curves. However, there is no consensus on the number of cases required before effective and safe McKeown MIE can be achieved.

METHODS

Data of consecutive patients with esophageal carcinoma undergoing esophagectomy by a single surgeon in the Department of Thoracic Surgery at Daping Hospital from September 2009 to June 2019 were collected. Cumulative sum learning curve was plotted based on the learning associated parameters. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce selection bias from confounding factors. Kaplan-Meier was used to assess the survival differences.

RESULTS

The learning curve was divided into the ascending period (case 1-197), the plateau period (198-314), and the descending period (315-onward). After 197 cases, significant improvements in operative time (300 vs. 210minutes; P<.001), retrieved lymph nodes (17 vs. 20; P=.004), length of stay (18 vs. 13; P=.001), major postoperative complications (38.6 vs. 32.5%; P<.001), vocal cord palsy (6.1 vs. 0.9%; P=.04), and pulmonary complications (31.5 vs. 17.1%; P=.005) were observed. In addition, after 314 cases, a significant decrease in blood loss (200 vs. 100milliliters; P<.001), anastomotic leak (24.8 vs. 14.8%; P=.02), and chylothorax (4.3 vs. 0%; P=.001) was observed.After PSM, the overall and disease-free survival rates were significantly improved during the experienced period (P=.02 and .03, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The initial learning phase of McKeown MIE consisted of 197 procedures in 51 months. Moreover, the surgeon's experience did have a direct impact on the long-term outcomes for patients with esophageal carcinoma. (250).

A Comparative Study between the Postoperative Complications of Stripping Esophagectomy and Classic (Orringer's Technique) Esophagectomy

Recent studies have suggested that morbidity and mortality rate of transhiatal esophagectomy is comparable to that of thoracotomy, calling the need for the modifications in the surgical procedures. Our methodology includes stripping of esophagus by nasogastric tube to reduce the manipulation of thoracic cavity and associated complications. We also present the comparison between the stripping and classic (Orringer's technique) esophagectomy. Patients presenting esophageal carcinoma from 2015 to 2017 were the target of this study. Patients undergoing esophagectomy were randomized to have classic or stripping esophagectomy. Operating time, manipulation time, blood losses during the surgery, duration of hospitalization, volume intake, hypotension time, arrhythmia, and transfusion were the recorded parameters. Complications, such as anastomotic leak, cardiac effects, and morbidity, were also studied. Seventy patients were referred for transhiatal esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma at the Al Zahra Hospital. Mean ages of patients in the stripping and Orringer group were 64.00 ± 10.57 and 57.42 ± 12.20 years, respectively. Manipulation time, operating time, blood loss during the surgery, and transfusion were statistically significant variables between the two groups. Although volume intake and duration of hospitalization were not significantly different parameters, however, betterment in the outcomes was evident. Substantial decrease in overall complications via stripping method was obtained, hence can be suggested as an effective alternative, to remove the need of thoracotomy, for transhiatal esophagectomy.

Learning curves in minimally invasive esophagectomy: A systematic review and evaluation of benchmarking parameters

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive techniques are increasingly used in the treatment of esophageal cancer. The learning curve for minimally invasive esophagectomy is variable and can impact patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to review the current evidence on learning curves in minimally invasive esophagectomy and identify which parameters are used for benchmarking.

METHODS

A search of the major reference databases (PubMed, Medline, Cochrane) was performed with no time limits up to February 2020. Results were screened in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were included if an assessment of the learning curve was reported on, regardless of which (if any) statistical method was used.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies comprising 3,741 patients were included. Twenty-two studies reported on a combination of thoracoscopic, hybrid, and total minimally invasive esophagectomy, 6 studies reported robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy alone, and 1 study evaluated both robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy and thoracoscopic esophagectomies. Operating time was the most frequently used parameter to determine learning curve progression (23/39 studies), with number of resected lymph nodes, morbidity, and blood loss also frequently used. Learning curves were found to plateau at 7 to 60 cases for thoracoscopic esophagectomy, 12 to 175 cases for total and thoracoscopic/hybrid esophagectomy, and 9 to 85 cases for robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy.

CONCLUSION

Multiple parameters are employed to gauge minimally invasive esophagectomy learning curve progression. However, there are no validated or approved sets of outcomes. Further work is required to determine the optimum parameters that should be used to ensure best patient outcomes and required length of proctoring.

Totally Robotic Esophagectomy

Totally robotic esophagectomy is performed using a robotic technique without additional thoracoscopy or laparoscopy. However, most robotic esophagectomies are currently performed in a hybrid form combining robotic and other endoscopic techniques. Laparoscopic stomach mobilization and thoracoscopic esophagogastric anastomosis are commonly used methods in robotic esophagectomy. In this paper, totally robotic esophagectomy without thoracoscopic or laparoscopic assistance is presented.

Intrathoracic vs Cervical Anastomosis After Totally or Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

Transthoracic minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly performed as part of curative multimodality treatment. There appears to be no robust evidence on the preferred location of the anastomosis after transthoracic MIE.

Objective

To compare an intrathoracic with a cervical anastomosis in a randomized clinical trial.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This open, multicenter randomized clinical superiority trial was performed at 9 Dutch high-volume hospitals. Patients with midesophageal to distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer planned for curative resection were included. Data collection occurred from April 2016 through February 2020.

Intervention

Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to transthoracic MIE with intrathoracic or cervical anastomosis.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was anastomotic leakage requiring endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical intervention. Secondary outcomes were overall anastomotic leak rate, other postoperative complications, length of stay, mortality, and quality of life.

Results

Two hundred sixty-two patients were randomized, and 245 were eligible for analysis. Anastomotic leakage necessitating reintervention occurred in 15 of 122 patients with intrathoracic anastomosis (12.3%) and in 39 of 123 patients with cervical anastomosis (31.7%; risk difference, -19.4% [95% CI, -29.5% to -9.3%]). Overall anastomotic leak rate was 12.3% in the intrathoracic anastomosis group and 34.1% in the cervical anastomosis group (risk difference, -21.9% [95% CI, -32.1% to -11.6%]). Intensive care unit length of stay, mortality rates, and overall quality of life were comparable between groups, but intrathoracic anastomosis was associated with fewer severe complications (risk difference, -11.3% [-20.4% to -2.2%]), lower incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (risk difference, -7.3% [95% CI, -12.1% to -2.5%]), and better quality of life in 3 subdomains (mean differences: dysphagia, -12.2 [95% CI, -19.6 to -4.7]; problems of choking when swallowing, -10.3 [95% CI, -16.4 to 4.2]; trouble with talking, -15.3 [95% CI, -22.9 to -7.7]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, intrathoracic anastomosis resulted in better outcome for patients treated with transthoracic MIE for midesophageal to distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer.

Trial Registration

Trialregister.nl Identifier: NL4183 (NTR4333).

Learning Curve for Lymph Node Dissection Around the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve in McKeown Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

Background

Compared to open esophagectomy (OE), minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is associated with lower morbidity and mortality. However, lymph node (LN) dissection around the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) is still an important factor that affects the length of the learning curve of MIE. This study aims to evaluate the surgical outcomes of the first nearly 5-year period and explore the learning curve for LN dissection around the RLN in McKeown MIE by a new single surgical team.

Methods

A total of 285 consecutive patients who underwent McKeown MIE between March 2016 and September 2020 were included at our institution. According to the cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis of LN dissection around the RLN, the patients were divided into three groups: exploration period, adjustment period, and stable period. We assessed the impact of surgical proficiency on postoperative outcomes and explored the learning curve for LN dissection around the RLN in McKeown MIE.

Results

The CUSUM graph showed that a point of upward inflection for LN dissection around the RLN was observed in 151 cases. After 151 cases, LNs around the right and left RLNs were dissected thoroughly compared to the exploration and adjustment period (P = 0.010 and P = 0.012, respectively), and the postoperative incidence of hoarseness significantly decreased from 11.1 to 1.5% (P<0.001).

Conclusions

Our study results revealed that not only are the LN, around the RLN, sufficiently dissected but also the incidence of hoarseness significantly decreased in the stable phase. Consequently, the learning curve length was approximately 151 cases for LN dissection around the RLN in McKeown MIE.

Minimally invasive total adventitial resection of the cardia for tumours of the oesophagogastric junction

PURPOSE

A cohort study analysing phases and outcomes of the learning curve required to master minimally invasive total adventitial resection of the cardia.

METHODS

Data from 198 consecutive oesophagectomies performed by a single surgeon was collected prospectively. Patients' stratification reflected chronologically and technically the four main phases of the learning curve: open surgery (open total adventitial resection of the cardia (TARC), n = 45), hybrid Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy (HILO, n = 50), laparoscopic-thoracoscopic assisted (LTA, n = 56) and totally minimally invasive TARC (TMI TARC, n = 47). Operating time, hospital stay, specimen lymph nodes and resection margins were analysed. Five-year survival was the main long-term outcome measured.

RESULTS

Overall 5-year survival was 45%. Perioperative mortality was 1.5% (n = 3). Hospital stay was 22 ± 23 days. Specimen lymph node median was 20 (range: 15-26). Resection margins were negative (R = 0, American College of Pathologists) in 193 cases (97.4%). Five-year survival in the four phases was 37.8%, 44.9%, 42.9% and 55.3%, showing a positive trend towards the end of the learning curve (p = 0.024). Median specimen lymph nodes was 20 (range: 15-22) for open TARC, 18.5 (13-25) for HILO, 19.5 (15-25) for LTA and 23 (18-30) for TMI TARC (p = 0.006). TMI TARC, adenocarcinoma, R >0, T >2, N >0 and LyRa (ratio positive/total specimen nodes) were associated with survival on univariate analysis. T >2 and LyRa independently predicted worse survival on multivariate analysis. CUSUM analysis showed surgical proficiency gain since laparoscopy was introduced.

CONCLUSION

Mastering minimally invasive TARC requires a long learning curve. TMI TARC is safe and oncologically appropriate and may benefit long-term survival: it should be validated by randomised trials as a standardised anatomical resection for tumours of the oesophagogastric junction.

Pulmonary levels of biomarkers for inflammation and lung injury in protective versus conventional one-lung ventilation for oesophagectomy: A randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

It is uncertain whether protective ventilation reduces ventilation-induced pulmonary inflammation and injury during one-lung ventilation.

OBJECTIVE

To compare intra-operative protective ventilation with conventional during oesophagectomy with respect to pulmonary levels of biomarkers for inflammation and lung injury.

DESIGN

Randomised clinical trial.

SETTING

Tertiary centre for oesophageal diseases.

PATIENTS

Twenty-nine patients scheduled for one-lung ventilation during oesophagectomy.

INTERVENTIONS

Low tidal volume (VT) of 6 ml kg predicted body weight (pbw) during two-lung ventilation and 3 ml kgpbw during one-lung ventilation with 5 cmH2O positive end expired pressure versus intermediate VT of 10 ml kgpbw during two-lung ventilation and 5 ml kgpbw body weight during one-lung ventilation with no positive end-expiratory pressure.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the change in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) levels of preselected biomarkers for inflammation (TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-8) and lung injury (soluble Receptor for Advanced Glycation End-products, surfactant protein-D, Clara Cell protein 16 and Krebs von den Lungen 6), from start to end of ventilation.

RESULTS

Median [IQR] VT in the protective ventilation group (n = 13) was 6.0 [5.7 to 7.8] and 3.1 [3.0 to 3.6] ml kgpbw during two and one-lung ventilation; VT in the conventional ventilation group (n = 16) was 9.8 [7.0 to 10.1] and 5.2 [5.0 to 5.5] ml kgpbw during two and one-lung ventilation. BAL levels of biomarkers for inflammation increased from start to end of ventilation in both groups; levels of soluble Receptor for Advanced Glycation End-products, Clara Cell protein 16 and Krebs von den Lungen 6 did not change, while levels of surfactant protein-D decreased. Changes in BAL biomarkers levels were not significantly different between the two ventilation strategies.

CONCLUSION

Intra-operative protective ventilation compared with conventional ventilation does not affect changes in pulmonary levels of biomarkers for inflammation and lung injury in patients undergoing one-lung ventilation for oesophagectomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The 'Low versus Conventional tidal volumes during one-lung ventilation for minimally invasive oesophagectomy trial' (LoCo) was registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (study identifier NTR 4391).

A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Thoracolaparoscopic vs Open McKeown's Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness and survival benefit of minimally invasive esophagectomy compared to open esophagectomy (OE) remain controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and oncologic outcomes of McKeown's total minimally invasive esophagectomy (tMIE) and McKeown's OE in the treatment of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

METHODS

A series of 917 consecutive patients (306 OE and 611 tMIE) who underwent McKeown's esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in the Department of Thoracic Surgery at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center from January 2011 to December 2016 were evaluated. We performed propensity matching between the tMIE and OE groups on the basis of estimated propensity scores for each patient.

RESULTS

After propensity-matched analysis, 288 patients were selected from each group. The rate of postoperative complications, such as pneumonia, respiratory insufficiency, cervical anastomotic leakage, and wound infection, in the OE group was significantly higher than that in the tMIE group. Intraoperative blood loss and operative duration were not significantly different between the matched groups, whereas the tMIE group had a shorter length of intensive care unit stay and postoperative hospital stay than the OE group. The R0 resection rate and the number of lymph nodes harvested were not significantly different between groups. There was no significant difference in median overall survival between the 2 groups after matching.

CONCLUSIONS

McKeown's tMIE was shown to be a safe and effective procedure with long-term survival comparable to that of OE for the patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Outcomes After Converted Minimally Invasive to Open Esophagectomy in Patients With Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of unplanned conversion to open esophagectomy during minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) on postoperative morbidity and mortality for patients with esophageal cancer, as well as to evaluate the variables that influence the need for conversion.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent open esophagectomy or MIE by either a laparothoracoscopic approach or a robotic approach from 2016 to 2018 by using the esophagectomy-specific American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Poisson regression models were used to analyze 30-day outcomes and risk factors for conversion to open esophagectomy during attempted MIE.

RESULTS

A total of 2616 patients were identified. The overall conversion rate for MIE was 6.3%. Compared with completed MIE, patients requiring conversion to open esophagectomy had a significantly increased risk of 30-day mortality (risk ratio, 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 6.69) and experienced a variety of other postoperative complications. Patients requiring conversion to open esophagectomy during MIE also experienced worse perioperative outcomes when compared to patients who underwent planned open esophagectomy. Estimated surgical risk on the basis of the ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator was the only variable found to be independently associated with conversion from minimally invasive to open esophagectomy (risk ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.04, for each 10% increase in risk score).

CONCLUSIONS

Unplanned conversion to open esophagectomy during MIE is associated with significantly greater morbidity and a 2.6-fold increased risk of death when compared with both completed MIE and planned open esophagectomy. The ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator may help identify patients preoperatively who are at higher risk for conversion to open esophagectomy during MIE.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Transition from open to minimally invasive en bloc esophagectomy can be achieved without compromising surgical quality

BACKGROUND

En bloc esophagectomy results in higher lymph node (LN) retrieval than standard esophagectomy. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has gained traction due to improved short-term outcomes, but many large series report LN yields well below the international benchmark of 23. We sought to determine if an established approach to open en bloc resection can be safely transferred to MIE using LN yield as a quality benchmark.

METHODS

An open approach to en bloc esophagectomy (OE) was established over 5 years (~ 300 cases) before en bloc MIE was introduced in 2010. Patients undergoing curative-intent en bloc Ivor-Lewis and McKeown esophagectomy for cancer from 2010 to 2019 by a single surgeon with formal minimally invasive surgery training were identified from a prospectively collected database. Mann-Whitney U and χ² tests and cumulative sum analysis were used for statistical analysis. "Failure" was defined as LN yield less than AJCC's 8th edition guidelines: 10 LNs for pT1 cancers, 20 for pT2 and 30 for pT3-4.

RESULTS

A total of 269 esophageal resections met inclusion criteria [193(72%) OE; 76(28%) MIE]. Age, sex, BMI and comorbidities were comparable between groups. Tumors were larger and more often locally advanced in OE. Median LN retrieval was sufficient by international standards in both groups [OE:34(27-46); MIE:28(22-39); p = 0.01]. "Failures" occurred in 33(17%) of OE and 12(16%) MIE cases (p = 0.63). No learning effect was observed for LN yield. R0 resection rate was comparable [OE:191(99%); MIE:73(96%); p = 0.90]. Operative time was longer for MIE [275(246-300)] than OE [240(210-270) minutes], p < 0.0001, while estimated blood loss (OE:350(250-500)mL; MIE:300(200-400)mL; p = 0.02] and length of stay [OE:8(6-13); MIE7(6-9) days; p = 0.02] were higher for OE. Morbidity and mortality were comparable between groups and LN yield did not impact survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Under appropriate conditions, an established approach to open en bloc esophagectomy can be safely transferred to MIE without compromising surgical quality.

Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing HMIE with TMIE. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles comparing HMIE and TMIE were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. The primary outcome was pneumonia. Sensitivity analysis was performed by analyzing outcome for open chest hybrid MIE versus total TMIE and open abdomen MIE versus TMIE separately. Therefore, subgroup analysis was performed for laparoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, thoracoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, Ivor Lewis HMIE versus Ivor Lewis TMIE, and McKeown HMIE versus McKeown TMIE. There were no randomized controlled trials. Twenty-nine studies with a total of 3732 patients were included. Studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. In the main analysis, the pooled incidence of pneumonia was 19.0% after HMIE and 9.8% after TMIE which was not significantly different between the groups (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97-2.20). TMIE was associated with a lower incidence of wound infections (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.13-2.90) and less blood loss (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.34-1.22) but with longer operative time (SMD:-0.33, 95% CI: -0.59--0.08). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy-assisted HMIE was associated with a higher lymph node count than TMIE, and Ivor Lewis HMIE was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate than Ivor Lewis TMIE. In general, TMIE was associated with moderately lower morbidity compared to HMIE, but randomized controlled evidence is lacking. The higher leakage rate and lower lymph node count that was found after TMIE in sensitivity analysis indicate that TMIE can also have disadvantages. The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully by surgeons when moving from HMIE to TMIE.

Risk factors and outcomes associated with anastomotic leaks following esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Anastomotic leaks (AL) are a major complication after esophagectomy. This meta-analysis aimed to determine identify risks factors for AL (preoperative, intra-operative, and post-operative factors) and assess the consequences to outcome on patients who developed an AL. This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines, and eligible studies were identified through a search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases up to 31 December 2018. A meta-analysis was conducted with the use of random-effects modeling and prospectively registered with the PROSPERO database (Registration CRD42018130732). This review identified 174 studies reporting outcomes of 74,226 patients undergoing esophagectomy. The overall pooled AL rates were 11%, ranging from 0 to 49% in individual studies. Majority of studies were from Asia (n = 79). In pooled analyses, 23 factors were associated with AL (17 preoperative and six intraoperative). AL were associated with adverse outcomes including pulmonary (OR: 4.54, CI95%: 2.99-6.89, P < 0.001) and cardiac complications (OR: 2.44, CI95%: 1.77-3.37, P < 0.001), prolonged hospital stay (mean difference: 15 days, CI95%: 10-21 days, P < 0.001), and in-hospital mortality (OR: 5.91, CI95%: 1.41-24.79, P = 0.015). AL are a major complication following esophagectomy accounting for major morbidity and mortality. This meta-analysis identified modifiable risk factors for AL, which can be a target for interventions to reduce AL rates. Furthermore, identification of both modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors will facilitate risk stratification and prediction of AL enabling better perioperative planning, patient counseling, and informed consent.

Effectiveness of Transthoracic Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Transthoracic hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) is frequently performed in patients with esophageal cancer. However, no conclusive benefit has been defined for HMIE compared with open esophagectomy (OE) or totally MIE (TMIE). The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of HMIE compared with OE and TMIE.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase (via OVID) and Cochrane databases were comprehensively searched for relevant studies up to January 2019. Studies comparing the efficacy of transthoracic HMIE with OE or TMIE were included in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine relevant studies comprising 3994 patients were identified and included in the analysis of HMIE vs OE. HMIE decreased the incidence of postoperative total morbidity (OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.80, p = 0.00), pneumonia (OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.66, p = 0.00), in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.83, p = 0.01), duration of hospitalization (SMD=-1.03, 95% CI -1.73 to -0.33, p = 0.00) and the estimated intraoperative blood loss (SMD=-1.01, 95% CI -1.62 to -0.40, p = 0.00) compared with OE. Twenty-one relevant studies comprising 3007 patients were identified and included in the analysis of HMIE vs TMIE. HMIE increased estimated intraoperative blood loss [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 1.02, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.58, p = 0.00] and the incidence of postoperative pneumonia (OR = 1.69, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.26, p = 0.00) compared with TMIE. No statistical differences were observed for other surgical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In our opinion, HMIE is a promising surgical technique. But further RCTs are still needed to confirm the advantages and disadvantages of HMIE mentioned above.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Reliability and safety of minimally invasive esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: a retrospective study

Background

Thoracic surgeons have recognized the advantages of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). However, MIE for locally advanced esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) is controversial. This study aimed to nvestigate and summarise the reliability and safety of MIE after NCRT.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the perioperative outcomes of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy from January 2016 to January 2018, and compared them with patients who underwent MIE alone during the same period.

Results

In total, 107 patients were eligible for the study. Forty-four patients underwent MIE after NCRT (CRM), and 63 patients underwent MIE alone (MA). The surgical duration (253.59 ± 47.51 vs. 222.86 ± 42.86 min), intraoperative blood loss (164.55 ± 109.09 vs. 146.19 ± 112.89 ml), number of lymph nodes resected (18.36 ± 8.01 vs. 22.10 ± 12.03), duration of the postoperative hospital stay (12.84 ± 6.57 vs. 14.60 ± 8.48 days), postoperative intubation time (5.68 ± 3.08 vs. 6.54 ± 4.97 days), total incidence of complications (34.10% vs. 31.7%), and R0 resection rate (95.45% vs. 96.83%) had no significant difference. The incidence of arrhythmia was higher in CRM (P < 0.02). No mortality occurred postoperatively within 30 days in either group.

Conclusion

Minimally invasive esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is a feasible, safe, and beneficial for postoperative recovery of patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13019-019-0920-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Synchronous carcinoma of oesophageal and lung treated with laparoscopic-thoracoscopic cooperative surgery: A case report

Traditional open surgery has been used and was regarded as suitable alternatives to synchronous carcinoma of oesophageal and lung. However, few previous reports described laparoscopic-thoracoscopic cooperative surgery for it. In this present case, we report synchronous carcinoma of oesophageal and lung with laparoscopic-thoracoscopic cooperative surgery, showing new successfully approach treated with minimally invasive laparoscopic-thoracoscopic surgery.

Learning curve and postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy

Surgical innovation is necessary to increase surgical effectiveness and to decrease postoperative complications, but can be associated with learning curves. The significance of surgical learning curves is increasing and it is important to take surgical learning curves into account when interpreting outcome data that is acquired during an implementation period. This may especially be the case for a technically challenging procedure like minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). This review article provides an overview of the published literature that has described a learning curve for MIE, with particular interest in the relationship between the learning curve and postoperative complications. Twenty two studies reported learning curves of different types of MIE. These studies showed that the length of the learning curve of MIE can be significant, but most studies are single center studies of limited methodological quality. In addition, several learning curve analysis methods are used but a clear recommendation regarding the preferred method is lacking. Most studies use intraoperative parameters (e.g., operative time) to define the length of the learning curve. However, significant learning curve effects have been found for clinically more relevant parameters (e.g., anastomotic leak), especially for Ivor Lewis MIE. These studies suggest that patient safety can be substantially compromised during learning curves. To increase patient safety and shorten the learning curve, evidence based and effective safe implementation programs are necessary.

Evolution of the surgical technique of minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy: description according to the IDEAL framework

Totally minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (Ivor Lewis TMIE) is a technically challenging procedure and is associated with a learning curve. Refinement of surgical technique is an important part of this learning curve. However, detailed descriptions of these refinements according to the idea, development, exploration, assessment, and long-term follow-up (IDEAL) framework are lacking and this study was undertaken to fill this knowledge gap. From 2010 until 2016, all consecutive patients (n = 164) were included from the first patient undergoing Ivor Lewis TMIE. Surgical reports were analyzed and surgeons were interviewed to determine surgical refinements. These data were used to describe the transition of the surgical technique from IDEAL stage IIB to stage III. The main findings were that four refinements were made to the surgical procedure in IDEAL stage IIB: (1) At case 9, the use of the 25 mm OrVil was abandoned, exchanged for a 28 mm EEA stapler and a large omental wrap around the anastomosis was introduced; (2) at case 27, the omental wrap was reduced in volume; (3) at case 60, the omental wrap was refined to cover the full 360° of the anastomosis and (4) at case 77, the fixation of the anvil with the Endostitch was replaced by fixation with two Endoloops®. During the transition from IDEAL stage IIB to stage III, the incidence of anastomotic leakage decreased from 26.0% to 4.6% (P < 0.001) and the incidence of textbook outcome increased from 31.2% to 47.1% (P = 0.039). In conclusion, this study describes the surgical refinements that were made during the progression of Ivor Lewis TMIE from IDEAL stage IIB to IDEAL stage III. During IDEAL stage IIB, postoperative outcome improved as surgical proficiency was gained and the technique was refined.

Learning curves in minimally invasive esophagectomy

Surgical innovation and pioneering are important for improving patient outcome, but can be associated with learning curves. Although learning curves in surgery are a recognized problem, the impact of surgical learning curves is increasing, due to increasing complexity of innovative surgical procedures, the rapid rate at which new interventions are implemented and a decrease in relative effectiveness of new interventions compared to old interventions. For minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), there is now robust evidence that implementation can lead to significant learning associated morbidity (morbidity during a learning curve, that could have been avoided if patients were operated by surgeons that have completed the learning curve). This article provides an overview of the evidence of the impact of learning curves after implementation of MIE. In addition, caveats for implementation and available evidence regarding factors that are important for safe implementation and safe pioneering of MIE are discussed.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

[Thoracoscopic subtotal esophageal resection for benign esophageal diseases]

AIM

To investigate the role of video-assisted subtotal esophageal resection in treatment of patients with benign esophageal diseases.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty-one patients with benign esophageal diseases have undergone subtotal esophageal resection in our department for the period 2010-2017. Thoracoscopic technique was applied in 25 cases, open approach - in 26 patients. Total surgery time, thoracoscopic stage duration, length of hospital-stay (LOS), ICU-stay, Clavien-Dindo morbidity rates with separate registration of respiratory complications, mortality have been considered.

RESULTS

Groups were similar in terms of age, gender, ASA status. Thoracoscopic stage duration gradually decreased from 175 to 65 min with average time of 102 (75; 123) min. Total surgery time was 390 (270; 495) min in group 1 and 465 (341; 561) min in the control group (р=0.035). Mean ICU-stay decreased up to 2 (1.25; 3.75) days compared with the control group (5 (3.92; 5.85) days, р<0.0001). Conversion rate was 8%. In the main group complications Clavien-Dindo grade 2 were detected in 10 (40%) patients compared with 20 (69%) cases in the control group (р=0.009). Respiratory complications occurred in 5 patients in group 1 and in 13 cases of the control group (р=0.039). Mortality was absent.

CONCLUSION

Thoracoscopic subtotal esophageal resection may be advisable alternative to open surgery for patients with benign esophageal diseases due to lower postoperative morbidity and earlier rehabilitation followed by improved outcomes.

Costs and benefits of different methods of esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Background A minimally invasive approach to esophagectomy is being used increasingly, but concerns remain regarding the feasibility, safety, cost, and outcomes. We performed an analysis of the costs and benefits of minimally invasive, hybrid, and open esophagectomy approaches for esophageal cancer surgery. Methods The data of 83 consecutive patients who underwent a McKeown's esophagectomy at Prince of Songkla University Hospital between January 2008 and December 2014 were analyzed. Open esophagectomy was performed in 54 patients, minimally invasive esophagectomy in 13, and hybrid esophagectomy in 16. There were no differences in patient characteristics among the 3 groups Minimally invasive esophagectomy was undertaken via a thoracoscopic-laparoscopic approach, hybrid esophagectomy via a thoracoscopic-laparotomy approach, and open esophagectomy by a thoracotomy-laparotomy approach. Results Minimally invasive esophagectomy required a longer operative time than hybrid or open esophagectomy ( p = 0.02), but these patients reported less postoperative pain ( p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in blood loss, intensive care unit stay, hospital stay, or postoperative complications among the 3 groups. Minimally invasive esophagectomy incurred higher operative and surgical material costs than hybrid or open esophagectomy ( p = 0.01), but there were no significant differences in inpatient care and total hospital costs. Conclusion Minimally invasive esophagectomy resulted in the least postoperative pain but the greatest operative cost and longest operative time. Open esophagectomy was associated with the lowest operative cost and shortest operative time but the most postoperative pain. Hybrid esophagectomy had a shorter learning curve while sharing the advantages of minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Comparison of short-term outcomes and three yearsurvival between total minimally invasive McKeown and dual-incision esophagectomy

Background

The aim of this study was to compare the short‐term outcomes and three‐year survival between dual‐incision esophagectomy (DIE) and total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy (MIME) for esophageal cancer patients with negative upper mediastinal lymph nodes requiring esophagectomy and neck anastomosis.

Methods

One hundred and fifty patients underwent DIE, while 361 patients received total MIME. Perioperative outcomes and three‐year survival were compared in unmatched and propensity score matched data between two groups.

Results

Both unmatched and matched analysis demonstrated that there were no significant differences in the number of lymph nodes harvested, or major or minor complication rates between the DIE and MIME groups. Compared with patients who underwent DIE, patients who underwent total MIME had longer operation duration (310 minutes vs. 345 minutes; P = 0.002). However, there was significantly less intraoperative blood loss in the total MIME compared with the DIE group (191 mL vs. 287 mL, respectively; P < 0.001). Kaplan‐Meier analysis demonstrated a trend that patients who underwent MIME had longer overall (79.5% vs. 64.1%; P = 0.063) and disease‐free three‐year survival (65.3% vs. 82.8%; P = 0.058) compared with patients who underwent DIE.

Conclusions

Both total MIME and DIE are feasible for the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer patients with negative upper mediastinal lymph nodes requiring esophagectomy and neck anastomosis. However, MIME was associated with better overall and disease‐free three‐year survival compared with DIE.

Morbidity analysis in minimally invasive esophagectomy for oesophageal cancer versus conventional over the last 10 years, a single institution experience

BACKGROUND

There has been an increasing inclination towards minimally invasive esophagectomies (MIEs) at our institute recently for resectable oesophageal cancer.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the present study is to report peri-operative and long-term procedure specific outcomes of the two groups and analyse their changing pattern at our institute.

METHODS

All adult patients with a diagnosis of oesophageal cancer managed at our institute from 2005 to 2015 were included in this retrospective study. Patients' demographic and clinical characteristics were recorded through our hospital information system. The cohort of esophagectomies was allocated into two groups, conventional open esophagectomy (OE) or total laparoscopic MIE; hybrid esophagectomies were taken as a separate group. The short-term outcome measures are an operative time in minutes, length of hospital and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay in days, post-operative complications and 30 days in-hospital mortality. Complications are graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Long-term outcomes are long-term procedure related complications over a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Trends were analysed by visually inspecting the graphic plots for mean number of events in each group each year.

RESULTS

Our results showed no difference in mortality, length of hospital and ICU stays and incidence of major complications between three groups on uni- and multi-variate analysis (P > 0.05). The operative time was significantly longer in MIE group (odds ratio [OR]: 1.66, confidence interval [CI]: 2.4-11.5). The incidence of long-term complication was low for MIE (OR: 1.0, CI: 133-1.017). However, all post-operative surgical outcomes trended to improve in both groups over the course of this study and stayed better for MIE group except for the operative time.

CONCLUSION

MIE has overall comparable surgical outcomes to its conventional counterpart. Furthermore, the peri-operative outcomes tend to improve in our centre with the maturation of program and experience.

The impact of operative approaches on outcomes of middle and lower third esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the perioperative outcomes and 3-year overall survival (OS) of 2 approaches including Sweet and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in the surgical treatment of middle and lower third esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

METHODS

The medical records of 1,746 consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy for middle and lower esophageal cancer between January 2009 and September 2015 at the First Department of Thoracic Oncologic Surgery of Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College were retrospectively reviewed. The clinical variables and 3-year survival were compared between Sweet (n=1,701) and open Ivor Lewis (n=45) approaches in unmatched and propensity score matching analysis.

RESULTS

Patients who received esophagectomy by Sweet approach had shorter duration of surgery (mean 212 vs. 390 min; P<0.001), more lymph nodes removed (mean 24 vs. 19; P=0.005), lower overall complications rate (24.4% vs. 11.7%; P=0.009), lower total hospital cost (¥77,200 vs. 106,000; P=0.045) compared with patients who received open Ivor Lewis approach. After propensity score matching analysis, Sweet approach was still associated with decreased duration of surgery (mean 210 vs. 390 min; P<0.001), more lymph nodes removed (mean 24 vs. 19; P=0.050), and lower total hospital cost (¥86,800 vs. 106,000; P=0.045) compared with Ivor Lewis approach. However, there were no significant differences in overall complication rates (24.4% vs. 24.4%; P=1.000) between two approaches. There was no significant difference in 3-year OS between Sweet and open Ivor Lewis approaches (59.9% vs. 61.4%; P=0.637) in unmatched analysis and in matched analysis (77.8% vs. 61.4%; P=0.264).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort, for middle and lower third esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients, both Sweet and open Ivor Lewis approaches are feasible in terms of perioperative outcomes and 3-year OS.

Changes in oncological outcomes: comparison of the conventional and minimally invasive esophagectomy, a single institution experience

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is becoming the routine procedure for resectable esophageal cancer. The aim of this retrospective study is to analyze the oncologic adequacy of these two procedures at our Centre. Out of 1252 registered esophageal cancer patients at our institute from 2006 to 2015, 206 patients who underwent a surgical resection with curative intent and a complete medical record were retrospectively evaluated thru hospital medical record system (HIS). Patients were allocated into the conventional open OE, and minimally invasive MIE and Hybrid esophagectomy groups. Primary outcomes are tumor recurrence and disease-free survival over a minimum follow-up of 1 year along with assessment of adequacy of pathological specimen in terms of lymph nodes harvested and clear longitudinal <1 cm and circumferential (≥1 mm) resection margins for patients with post-neo-adjuvant residual disease. Secondary endpoint is to look for trends in the adequacy of oncologic clearance in each group over the study period. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) between groups (OE vs. MIE vs. Hybrid) for median number of lymph nodes retrieved (13 vs.14 vs.15), resection margin positive disease (55.8 vs. 35.7 vs. 44 % of patients with any residual disease N = 103,50 %), or tumor recurrence (45.2 vs. 37.3 vs. 25 %). Disease-free survival over a mean follow-up of 2.3 years was higher in the conventional group (13.8 months vs. 9.7MIE and 11.8hybrid) without any statistical significance. Learning curve for MIE to achieve a comparable mean lymph nodes harvest to OE was 1 year, while pathological complete resection stayed persistently better with minimally invasive approach. Minimally invasive esophagectomy is found to be oncologically adequate and gives results matching their conventional analogue with an increasing experience.

The value of esophagectomy surgical apgar score (eSAS) in predicting the risk of major morbidity after open esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Recently, surgical apgar score (SAS) has been reported to be strongly associated with major morbidity after major abdominal surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the value of esophagectomy SAS (eSAS) in predicting the risk of major morbidity after open esophagectomy in a high volume cancer center.

METHODS

The data of all patients who admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) after open esophagectomy at Cancer Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College from September 2008 through August 2010 was retrospectively collected and reviewed. Preoperative and perioperative variables were recorded and compared. The eSAS was calculated as the sum of the points of EBL, lowest MAP and lowest HR for each patient. Patients were divided into high-risk (below the cutoff) and low-risk (above the cutoff) eSAS groups according to the cutoff score with optimal accuracy of eSAS for major morbidity. Univariable and multivariable regression analysis were used to define risk factors of the occurrence of major morbidity.

RESULTS

Of 189 patients, 110 patients developed major morbidities (58.2%) and 30-day operative mortality was 5.8% (11/189). There were 156 high risk patients (eSAS ≤7) and 33 low risk (eSAS >7) patients. Univariable analysis demonstrated that forced expiratory volume in one second of predicted (FEV1%) ≤78% (44% vs. 61%, P=0.024), McKeown approach (22.7% vs. 7.6%, P=0.011), duration of operation longer than 230 minutes, intraoperative estimated blood loss (347±263 vs. 500±510 mL, P=0.015) and eSAS ≤7 (62.2% vs. 90.0%, P=0.001) were predictive of major morbidity. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that FEV1% ≤78% (OR, 2.493; 95% CI, 1.279-4.858, P=0.007) and eSAS ≤7 (OR, 2.810; 95% CI, 1.105-7.144; P=0.030) were independent predictors of major morbidity after esophagectomy. Compared with patients who had eSAS >7, patients who had eSAS ≤7 had longer hospital length of stay (25.39±14.36 vs. 32.22±22.66 days, P=0.030). However, there were no significant differences in ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU death, 30-day death rate and in-hospital death rate between high risk and low risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The eSAS score is predictive of major morbidity, and lower eSAS is associated with longer hospital length of stay in esophageal cancer patients after open esophagectomy.