Use of efficient purse-string stapling technique for esophagogastric anastomosis in minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy

The comparisons of three stapler placement methods for intrathoracic mechanistic circular stapling in Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

To analyze the impact of the reversal penetrating technique (RPT) for intrathoracic gastroesophageal mechanical anastomosis on the development of anastomotic complications in Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy (ILMIE), and to further identify the risk factors for the development of anastomotic leakage and stricture.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted using the clinical data of 316 patients with esophageal carcinoma (EC) who underwent ILMIE from January 2012 to December 2019. The participants were divided into three groups, namely the RPT group, the transoral Orvil technique (TOT) group, and the purse-string technique (PST) group, according to the different stapler placement methods for intrathoracic mechanistic circular stapling. Multivariate analysis was performed to investigate the association of risk factors with anastomotic leakage and stricture.

RESULTS

There were 154 patients in the RPT group, 78 in the TOT group, and 84 in the PST group for intrathoracic gastroesophageal circular stapling in ILMIE. There were no differences in intraoperative anastomosis-related conditions including conversion of open operations, and lymph nodes harvested between the three groups. However, the mean total operative time and gastroesophageal anastomosis time in the RPT group were significantly shorter than those in the other groups (both P<0.05). The rates of anastomotic leakage and stricture showed no statistical differences between the three groups (leakage: P=0.875; stricture: P=0.942). Multivariate analysis revealed that the RPT method of anvil placement did not increase the probability of anastomotic leakage [RPT: reference; TOT: odds ratio (OR) 0.422, P=0.341; PST: OR 1.436, P=0.645] and stricture (RPT: reference; TOT: OR 0.579, P=0.376; PST: OR 1.195, P=0.755).

CONCLUSIONS

The RPT method of anvil placement for intrathoracic gastroesophageal circular stapling does not increase the risk of anastomotic complications in ILMIE, but had significantly shorter surgical time and anastomosis time.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer according to the location of the tumor: Experience of 251 patients

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly used for the treatment of esophageal cancer. However, the ideal approach of MIE is not yet standardized. We explore the ideal approach of MIE according to the location of the tumor and compare the clinical outcomes between patients with cancer arising in the upper third of the esophagus and those with tumors involving the middle and lower third of the esophagus.

METHODS

We included patients with esophageal carcinoma and had clear indications for MIE. For cancer arising in the upper third of the esophagus, MIE McKeown approach was performed. For tumors involving the middle and lower third of the esophagus, MIE Ivor Lewis approach was adopted.

RESULTS

Of the 251 patients included in this analysis, 200 patients underwent Ivor-Lewis MIE and 51 patients underwent McKeown MIE. The incidence of anastomotic leak, anastomotic stenosis and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury was significantly higher in the McKeown MIE group than that in the Ivor Lewis MIE group. The 30-day postoperative mortality rate was 1.2% (n = 1) in the McKeown MIE group. Lymph nodes harvested were significantly more in the MIE-McKeown group than in Ivor Lewis MIE group (P < 0.05). The median follow-up period was 15 months (1-25 months) and the overall survival rate at 1 year stratified by pathologic stage at esophagectomy was 95.9% (stage 1), 83.8% (stage II), 73.4% (stage III).

CONCLUSIONS

MIE for esophageal cancer according to the location and clinical stage of the tumor will decrease all postoperative complications and may yield the greatest benefit from surgery.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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