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

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy in the prone versus lateral decubitus position: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The thoracic phase of minimally invasive esophagectomy was initially performed in the lateral decubitus position (LDP); however, many experts have gradually transitioned to a prone position (PP) approach. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to quantitatively compare the two approaches. A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, Web of Knowledge, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was undertaken for studies comparing outcomes between patients undergoing minimally invasive esophageal surgery in the PP versus the LDP. In total, 15 studies with 1454 patients (PP; n = 710 vs. LDP; n = 744) were included. Minimally invasive esophagectomy in the PP provides statistically significant reduction in postoperative respiratory complications (Risk ratios 0.5, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.34-0.76, P < 0.001), blood loss (weighted mean differences [WMD] -108.97, 95% CI -166.35 to -51.59 mL, P < 0.001), ICU stay (WMD -0.96, 95% CI -1.7 to -0.21 days, P = 0.01) and total hospital stay (WMD -2.96, 95% CI -5.14 to -0.78 days, P = 0.008). In addition, prone positioning increases the overall yield of chest lymph node dissection (WMD 2.94, 95% CI 1.54-4.34 lymph nodes, P < 0.001). No statistically significant difference in regards to anastomotic leak rate, mortality and 5-year overall survival was encountered. Subgroup analysis revealed that the protective effect of prone positioning against pulmonary complications was more pronounced for patients undergoing single-lumen tracheal intubation. A head to head comparison of minimally invasive esophagectomy in the prone versus the LDP reveals superiority of the former method, with emphasis on the reduction of postoperative respiratory complications and reduced length of hospitalization. Long-term oncologic outcomes appear equivalent, although validation through prospective studies and randomized controlled trials is still necessary.

[Minimally invasive esophagectomy for benign esophageal diseases: results of a two-center study]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the results of thoracoscopic esophagectomy for benign esophageal diseases.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included 78 patients who underwent thoracoscopic esophagectomy between 2011 and 2019. Peptic and burn strictures of the esophagus were diagnosed in 53 patients, achalasia - in 24 patients. Minimally invasive esophagectomy and esophagoplasty with isoperistaltic gastric tube and esophagogastrostomy on the neck was performed in 68 patients, Ivor Lewis esophagectomy - in 1 patient, coloesophagoplasty - in 9 patients. We used manual technique of anastomosis in 58 patients, stapling device - in 19 patients. In 1 case, surgery was finished with esophagostomy and gastrostomy.

RESULTS

Mean blood loss was 200 ml (10-1200), surgery time - 450 min (265-765 min). Early postoperative complications occurred in 37 patients including anastomotic leakage in 24 cases. In long-term period, anastomotic strictures developed in 9 patients. No mortality was observed.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive esophagectomy for benign esophageal diseases ensures favorable clinical outcomes. However, no consensus in the choice of surgical approach and indications, as well as small number of these patients cause challenges in implementation of this technique. There are different opinions regarding technique of anastomosis on the neck and surgical access in thoracoscopic esophagectomy.

Minimal Invasive Esophagectomy-a New Dawn of EsophagealSurgery

Surgery is the mainstay of esophageal cancer. However, esophagectomy is a major surgical trauma on a patient with high morbidity and mortality. The intent of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is to decrease the degree of surgical trauma and perioperative morbidity associated with open surgery, and provide faster recovery and shorter hospital stay with the equivalent oncological outcome. It also allows for lesser pulmonary morbidity, less blood loss, less pain, and a better quality of life. MIE is safe and effective but has a steep learning curve with high technical expertise. Recently, it is increasingly accepted and adopted all over the globe. In this article, we discuss the safety, efficacy, short-term, and oncological outcomes of thoracoscopic- and laparoscopic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy and robotic surgery compared with open esophagectomy with a special focus on the Indian perspective.

An Unusual Cause of Chylothorax after Esophagectomy

Chylothorax due to inadvertent thoracic duct injury after esophagectomy is a well-known complication and requires careful postoperative management and timely intervention to prevent potential morbidity and mortality. We present a case of high-output chylothorax after esophagectomy where the source of chyle leak was not in the thorax.

[Minimally invasive esophagectomy]

Certain advantages of minimally invasive esophagectomy compared with conventional approaches were observed. Optimal surgical access, technique and features of anastomoses formation are still unclear despite common tendency to minimally invasive esophageal surgery. Further researches are necessary to resolve these problems and improve the outcomes.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis of semiprone versus prone position

Background

The preferred surgical approach for esophageal cancer is a minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy with a two-field lymph node dissection. The thoracoscopic phase may be performed either in prone- or in left lateral decubitus (LLD) position. Prone positioning has been associated with better pulmonary outcomes compared to LLD positioning; however, conversion to a classic thoracotomy is more difficult. The semiprone position has been proposed as an alternative approach.

Methods

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database (2008–2014) was performed to compare postoperative complications, surgical radicality, and lymph node yield between patients who underwent three-stage minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy in either the prone or semiprone position. Comparative analyses were conducted before and after propensity score matching.

Results

One hundred and twenty-one patients were included. In total, 82 patients underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in semiprone position and 39 patients in prone position. After propensity score matching, both groups consisted of 39 patients. The operative time in the semiprone group was longer (368 vs. 225 min, P < 0.001) and in this group the lymph node yield was significantly higher (16 (range 6–80) vs. 13 (range 3–33), P = 0.019). There were no statistically significant differences regarding radical resections, postoperative complications, and hospital stay.

Conclusion

The use of semiprone positioning in MIE is safe, feasible, and at least comparable to MIE in prone position in terms of oncological clearance and postoperative complications.

Thoracoscopic management of oesophageal mucocele: Old complication, new approach

Oesophageal mucocele is an uncommon complication of bipolar exclusion of oesophagus. Traditionally, this condition is managed through thoracotomy which is associated with significant morbidity. The present report outlines the thoracoscopic management of oesophageal mucocele following surgical exclusion for oesophageal perforation. Left thoracoscopic oesophagectomy for oesophageal mucocele described in this report has not been published earlier.

Current Status and Future Prospects for Esophageal Cancer Treatment

The local control effect of esophagectomy with three-field lymph node dissection (3FLD) is reaching its limit pending technical advancement. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) by thoracotomy is slowly gaining acceptance due to advantages in short-term outcomes. Although the evidence is slowly increasing, MIE is still controversial. Also, the results of treatment by surgery alone are limiting, and multimodality therapy, which includes surgical and non-surgical treatment options including chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and endoscopic treatment, has become the mainstream therapy. Esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is the standard treatment for clinical stages II/III (except for T4) esophageal cancer, whereas chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is regarded as the standard treatment for patients who wish to preserve their esophagus, those who refuse surgery, and those with inoperable disease. CRT is also usually selected for clinical stage IV esophageal cancer. On the other hand, with the spread of CRT, salvage esophagectomy has traditionally been recognized as a feasible option; however, many clinicians oppose the use of surgery due to the associated unfavorable morbidity and mortality profile. In the future, the improvement of each treatment result and the establishment of individual strategies are important although esophageal cancer has many treatment options.