Review of open and minimal access approaches to oesophagectomy for cancer

Useful strategies to prevent severe stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal neoplasm

The minimal invasiveness of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) prompted us to apply this technique to large-size early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and Barrett’s adenocarcinoma, despite the limitations in the study population and surveillance duration. A post-ESD ulceration of greater than three-fourths of esophageal circumference was advocated as an important risk factor for refractory strictures that require several sessions of dilation therapy. Most of the preoperative conditions are asymptomatic, but dilatation treatment for dysphagia associated with the stricture has potential risks of severe complications and a worsening of quality of life. Possible mechanisms of dysphasia were demonstrated based on dysmotility and pathological abnormalities at the site: (1) delayed mucosal healing; (2) severe inflammation and disorganized fibrosis with abundant extracellular matrices in the submucosa; and (3) atrophy in the muscularis proper. However, reports on the administration of anti-scarring agents, preventive dilation therapies, and regenerative medicine demonstrated limited success in stricture prevention, and there were discrepancies in the study designs and protocols of these reports. The development and consequent long-term assessments of new prophylactic technologies on the promotion of wound healing and control of the inflammatory/tumor microenvironment will require collaboration among various research fields because of the limited accuracy of preoperative staging and high-risk of local recurrence.

Oncologic Long-Term Results of Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Thoraco-Laparoscopic Esophagectomy with Two-Field Lymphadenectomy for Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Open transthoracic esophagectomy is the worldwide gold standard in the treatment of resectable esophageal cancer. Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal cancer may be associated with reduced blood loss, shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and less cardiopulmonary morbidity; however, long-term oncologic results have not been reported to date.

METHODS

Between June 2007 and September 2011, a total of 108 patients with potentially resectable esophageal cancer underwent RAMIE at the University Medical Centre Utrecht, with curative intent. All data were recorded prospectively.

RESULTS

Median duration of the surgical procedure was 381 min (range 264-636). Pulmonary complications were most common and were observed in 36 patients (33 %). Median ICU stay was 1 day, and median overall postoperative hospital stay was 16 days. In-hospital mortality was 5 %. The majority of patients (78 %) presented with T3 and T4 disease, and 68 % of patients had nodal-positive disease (cN1-3). In 65 % of patients, neoadjuvant treatment (chemotherapy 57 %, chemoradiotherapy 7 %, radiotherapy 1 %) was administered, and in 103 (95 %) patients, a radical resection (R0) was achieved. The median number of lymph nodes was 26, median follow-up was 58 months, 5-year overall survival was 42 %, median disease-free survival was 21 months, and median overall survival was 29 months. Tumor recurrence occurred in 51 patients and was locoregional only in 6 (6 %) patients, systemic only in 31 (30 %) patients, and combined in 14 (14 %) patients.

CONCLUSION

RAMIE was shown to be oncologically effective, with a high percentage of R0 radical resections and adequate lymphadenectomy. RAMIE provided good local control with a low percentage of local recurrence at long-term follow up.

Robotic assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in the elderly patient

OBJECTIVE

Robotic assisted approaches to esophagectomy have demonstrated decreased complications and length of hospitalization. We sought to examine the impact of age on outcomes in patients undergoing robotic assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (RAIL).

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients undergoing RAIL from 2009-2013 was conducted. Statistical analysis was performed for the entire cohort and by stratifying patients into three age cohorts: ≤49, 50-69, ≥70.

RESULTS

We identified 134 patients and found no statistically significant difference for operative time, length of hospitalization, adverse events (AE), or mortality. There was a higher median blood loss (150 cc) seen in cohorts 1 (50-600 cc) and 3 (50-400 cc) compared to cohort 2 [100 (range, 25-400) cc; P<0.01]. The overall AE rate was 10% (cohort 1), 22% (cohort 2), 35% (cohort 3), P=0.13. There were 5 (4%) leaks and 2 (1.5%) deaths, but this was not significantly different between cohorts (P=0.40, P=0.91, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

RAIL is a safe surgical technique for use in an aging patient population. There was no increased risk of AE or death in the elderly patients compared to younger patients undergoing the robotic approach.

Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: clinical outcomes for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

We compared oncologic and surgical outcome between minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and the Ivor Lewis-type open approach (OE) in the treatment of locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Of 284 patients undergoing surgery for EAC between 2003 and 2013, the 153 selected with locally advanced EAC were 74 MIEs and 79 OEs [median age, 66 for MIE, 63 for OE (p = 0.009)]. Neoadjuvant therapy was given to 82% of MIEs and 78% of OEs. In the OE group, 86% was male, and in the MIE group, 78%. Data assessed were oncologic, intraoperative, and postoperative.

RESULTS

Mortality at 30 days was 3% for MIE and 1% for OE; and 90-day mortality was 4% for MIE and 5% for OE. The complication rate for MIE was 50%, and 60% for OE (p = 0.181). The pneumonia rate was 18% for MIE and 19% for OE; leak rate was 7% for MIE and 6% for OE; conduit necrosis was 0 for MIE and 3% for OE; and rate of airway-conduit fistula was 3% for MIE and 1 % for OE. Median blood loss (MIE 300 vs. OE 800, p < 0.0001), overall stay (MIE 13 vs. OE 14, p = 0.040), and harvested lymph nodes (MIE 20 vs. OE 22, p = 0.021) all were in favor of MIE. Median ICU stay and operative time did not differ. Neither did overall (OS) nor recurrence-free (RFS) 3-year survival differs significantly (MIE 64% vs. OS OE 49%, MIE 57% vs. RFS OE 53%).

CONCLUSIONS

In our institution, MIE appears to produce oncologic and survival results similar to those of OE. Shorter length of stay and less operative blood loss may reduce costs for MIE.

Predicting blood transfusion in patients undergoing minimally invasive oesophagectomy

AIM

To evaluate predictors of allogenic blood transfusion requirements in patients undergoing minimal invasive oesophagectomy at a tertiary high volume centre for oesophago-gastric surgery.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing minimal access oesophagectomy in our department between January 2010 and December 2011. Patients were divided into two groups depending on whether they required a blood transfusion at any time during their index admission. Factors that have been shown to influence perioperative blood transfusion requirements in major surgery were included in the analysis. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the impact of patient and perioperative characteristics on transfusion requirements during the index admission.

RESULTS

A total of 80 patients underwent minimal access oesophagectomy, of which 61 patients had a laparoscopic assisted oesophagectomy and 19 patients had a minimal invasive oesophagectomy. Perioperative blood transfusion was required in 28 patients at any time during hospital admission. On binary logistic regression analysis, a lower preoperative haemoglobin concentration (p < 0.01), suffering a significant complication (p < 0.005) and laparoscopic assisted oesophagectomy (p < 0.05) were independent predictors of blood transfusion requirements.

DISCUSSION

It has been reported that requirement for blood transfusion can affect long-term outcomes in oesophageal cancer resection. Two factors which could be addressed preoperatively; haemoglobin concentration and type of oesophageal resection, may be valuable in predicting blood transfusions in patients undergoing minimally invasive oesophagectomy.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis revealed that preoperative haemoglobin concentration, occurrence of significant complications and type of minimal access oesophagectomy predicted blood transfusion requirements in the patient population examined.

A personal perspective on controversies in the surgical management of oesophageal cancer

Significant disagreement and debate persist regarding several aspects of the optimal surgical management of oesophageal cancer. We address some of these issues based on our consecutive series of 165 patients undergoing oesophageal resection (reported in full elsewhere) and the available literature. The areas considered are controversial but we argue in favour of a 'traditional' two-stage open approach (Ivor-Lewis), leaving the pylorus alone, making no attempt to perform a radical lymphadenectomy and fashioning a hand sewn anastomosis.

Comparison of outcomes of open and minimally invasive esophagectomy in 183 patients with cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Only few randomized trials or comparative studies with large number of patients have been reported on the outcomes of thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy (TLE) with cervical anastomosis and open 3-field esophagectomy (OE) for patients with esophageal cancer. The objective of this study is to compare the safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes between TLE and OE (via right throax, abdomen, and left neck) for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Clinical and surgical data of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent either TLE or OE between February 2011 and December 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic characteristics, pathological data, operative procedures, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes and survival in patients were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

Of the 183 patients included in this retrospective analysis, 94 underwent TLE and 89 underwent OE. Demographics, pathologic data, inpatient mortality, and overall surgical morbidity in both cohorts were almost identical. A significant difference was observed in blood loss (182.6±78.3 vs. 261.4±87.2 mL, P<0.001), hospital stay (13.9±7.5 vs. 17.1±10.2 days, P=0.017), overall surgical morbidity (25.5% vs. 46.1%, P=0.004), and rate of pulmonary and cardiac complication (9.6% vs. 27.0%, P=0.002; 4.1% vs. 12.4%, P=0.046) between TLE and OE groups; however, no difference in survival period was observed between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The procedure of TLE for esophageal cancer possesses advantages in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes compared with OE. The TLE procedure results in similar or potentially better outcomes.

Combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM: To evaluate the effects of combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy (TLE) versus open esophagectomy (OE) in the management of esophageal cancer.

METHODS: Eligible studies were identified from electronic databases including Medline, Embase, OVID, Cochrane Library, Springerlink, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP. We screened the retrieved literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and performed a Meta-analysis with the software RevMan 5.2 after identification of the relevant data.

RESULTS: A total of 1448 patients from 14 studies were included for the analysis, including 735 patients who underwent TLE and 713 patients who underwent OE. TLE was associated with less blood loss, fewer respiratory complications and shorter length of hospital stay. However, TLE had longer operative time. There was no significant difference in the incidence of anastomotic leak or the number of lymph nodes harvested (P > 0.05 for both) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION: TLE for esophageal cancer offers results as good as or better than those with open esophagectomy. TLE is associated with reduced perioperative complications and shortened length of hospital stay.

Combined thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy: experience, technique and cautions

We described a 59-year-old female, who came to our institute with the diagnosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The preoperative clinical diagnosis was stage II esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The three-stage minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis, was performed in this case. The lateral-prone decubitus position and Harmonic scalpel facilitate the operation.

Technical factors that affect anastomotic integrity following esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Due to the significant contribution of anastomotic leak, with its disastrous consequences to patient morbidity and mortality, multiple parameters have been proposed and individually meta-analyzed for the formation of the ideal esophagogastric anastomosis following cancer resection. The purpose of this pooled analysis was to examine the main technical parameters that impact on anastomotic integrity.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, trial registries, and conference proceedings were searched. Technical factors evaluated included hand-sewn versus stapled esophagogastric anastomosis (EGA), cervical versus thoracic EGA, minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy, anterior versus posterior route of reconstruction and ischemic conditioning of the gastric conduit. The outcome of interest was the incidence of anastomotic leak, for which pooled odds ratios were calculated for each technical factor.

RESULTS

No significant difference in the incidence of anastomotic leak was demonstrated for the following technical factors: hand-sewn versus stapled EGA, minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy, anterior versus posterior route of reconstruction and ischemic conditioning of the gastric conduit. Four randomized, controlled trials comprising 298 patients were included that compared cervical and thoracic EGA. Anastomotic leak was seen more commonly in the cervical group (13.64 %) than in the thoracic group (2.96 %). Pooled analysis demonstrated a significantly increased incidence of anastomotic leak in the cervical group (pooled odds ratio = 4.73; 95 % CI 1.61-13.9; P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

A tailored surgical approach to the patient's physiology and esophageal cancer stage is the most important factor that influences anastomotic integrity after esophagectomy.

Thoracoscopic esophagectomy using prone positioning

Thoracotomic esophagectomy followed by cervical and abdominal procedures has been conventionally performed as the best curable operative procedure for treating invasive thoracic esophageal carcinoma. Despite improvements in the survival rate, the procedure is associated with significant operative morbidity and mortality rates due to the extreme invasiveness of an extensive dissection of the lymph nodes. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was developed to reduce surgical invasiveness. Recently, the use of thoracoscopic esophagectomy performed in the prone position has stimulated new interest in minimally invasive approaches. However, the advantages and disadvantages of this technique are not well known. In this review, the literature to date, including series and comparative studies of minimally invasive esophagectomy performed in the prone position, is summarized, and the various lessons learned and controversies surrounding this technique are addressed.

Management of early-stage esophageal neoplasia (MESEN) consensus

BACKGROUND

Treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma often involves surgical resection. Newer technologies in interventional endoscopy have led to a substantial paradigm shift in the management of early-stage neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus comprising high-grade dysplasia (HGD), intramucosal carcinoma, and, in some cases, submucosal carcinoma. However, there has been no consensus regarding the indications for esophageal preservation in these cases. In this work, consensus guidelines were established for the management of early-stage esophageal neoplasia considering clinically relevant aspects (age, comorbidities, and social environment) in each scenario.

METHODS

Seventeen experts were invited to participate based on their background and clinical expertise at high-volume centers. A questionnaire was created that included four clinical scenarios covering a wide range of situations within HGD and/or early esophageal neoplasia, particularly where controversies are likely to exist. Each of the clinical scenarios was open to discussion subdivided by patient age (20, 50, and 80 s). For each clinical scenario an expert was chosen to defend that position. Each defense triggered a subsequent discussion during a consensus meeting. Conclusions of that discussion together with an accompanying literature analysis allowed experts to confirm or change their original choices and served as the basis for the recommendations stated in this article.

RESULTS

There was 100 % consensus supporting esophageal preservation in patients with HGD, independent of patient age or Barrett's length. In patients with T1a adenocarcinoma, consensus for preservation was not reached (65 %) for young and middle-aged individuals but was supported for elderly patients (100 %). For T1b adenocarcinoma, consensus was reached for surgical resection (90 %), leaving organ preservation for patients with very low risk of nodal invasion or poor surgical candidates.

CONCLUSION

Advances in endoscopic imaging and therapy allow for organ preservation in most settings of early-stage neoplasia of the esophagus, provided that the patient understands the implications of this decision.

[Influence of the type of thoracic access on postesophagectomy respiratory complications]

INTRODUCTION

A systematic review of the literature was performed with the aim to determine differences in the rate of respiratory complications after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer using minimally invasive access vs traditional thoracic access.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using Medline and Cochrane Library, identifying studies that compared the 2 types of thoracic access, regardless of the type of abdominal access (laparotomy/laparoscopy). The studies selected described respiratory complications in absolute numbers and different categories. Studies that considered minithoracotomy as a minimally invasive technique were excluded. Inclusion criteria were: studies decribing the different types of respiratory complications (9 in total), and analysing the most common complications: respiratory infection, respiratory failure and pleural effusion.

RESULTS

Nine studies were selected (one prospective randomized trial and 8 case control studies) including 1,190 patients, 1,167 of which were operated on for esophageal cancer: 482 patients by thoracotomy and 708 by thoracoscopy. Three studies included definitions of respiratory complications, and one stratified them. The more frequent complications that allowed a meta-analysis were: respiratory infections, pleural effusion, and respiratory failure. No significant differences were found between the 2 types of access in the global analysis.

DISCUSSION

The type of thoracic access (thoracotomy or thoracoscopy) does not seem to influence the development of respiratory complications after esophagectomy for cancer. However, the design of the studies analysed, the absence of clear definitions and stratification of the complications makes this conclusion questionable. A consensus on the definition of complications and further prospective randomized clinical trials are necessary.

Defining the learning curve for robotic-assisted esophagogastrectomy

INTRODUCTION

The expansion of robotic-assisted surgery is occurring quickly, though little is generally known about the "learning curve" for the technology with utilization for complex esophageal procedures. The purpose of this study is to define the learning curve for robotic-assisted esophagogastrectomy with respect to operative time, conversion rates, and patient safety.

METHODS

We have prospectively followed all patients undergoing robotic-assisted esophagogastrectomy and compared operations performed at our institutions by a single surgeon in successive cohorts of 10 patients. Our measures of proficiency included: operative times, conversion rates, and complications. Statistical analyses were undertaken utilizing Spearman regression analysis and Mann-Whitney U test. Significance was accepted with 95 % confidence.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients (41 male: 11 female) of mean age 66.2 ± 8.8 years underwent robotic-assisted esophagogastrectomies for malignant esophageal disease. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation was administered to 30 (61 %) patients. A significant reduction in operative times (p <0.005) following completion of 20 procedures was identified (514 ± 106 vs. 397 ± 71.9). No conversions to open thoracotomy were required. Complication rates were low and not significantly different between any 10-patient cohort; however, no complications occurred in the final 10-patient cohort. There were no in-hospital mortalities.

CONCLUSIONS

For surgeons proficient in performing minimally-invasive esophagogastrectomies, the learning curve for a robotic-assisted procedure appears to begin near proficiency after 20 cases. Operative complications and conversions were infrequent and unchanged across successive 10-patient cohorts.

Evolution in surgical management of esophageal cancer

Esophageal resection remains the primary treatment for local regional esophageal cancer, although its role in superficial (T1A) cancers and squamous cell cancer is in evolution. Mortality associated with esophagectomy has historically been high but is improving with the current expectation of in-hospital mortality rates of 2-4% in high-volume centers. Most patients with regional cancers (T2-4 N0-3) are recommended for neoadjuvant therapy, which most commonly involves radiochemotherapy. Some centers have proposed treating with definitive chemoradiation and reserving surgery for patients who have persistent or recurrent disease. 'Salvage resections' are possible but are associated with higher levels of perioperative morbidity and mortality, and treatment decisions should routinely be based on multidisciplinary discussion in the tumor board. Although open surgical resection (both transthoracic and transhiatal operations) remain the most common approach, minimally invasive or hybrid operations are being done in up to 30% of procedures internationally. There are some indications that minimally invasive esophagectomy may decrease the incidence of respiratory complications and decrease length of stay. At this point, oncologic outcomes appear equivalent between open and minimally invasive procedures. Recent reviews from high-volume esophagectomy centers demonstrate that elderly patients can selectively undergo esophagectomy with the expectation of increased complications but similar mortality and survival to younger patients. Multiple studies confirm that quality of life following esophagectomy can be equivalent to the general population when surgery is done in experienced centers. Patients requiring surgical treatment of esophageal cancer should be referred to high-volume centers, especially those with established care pathways or enhanced recovery programs to improve outcomes including morbidity, mortality, survival, and quality of life.

Variation in the standard of minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer--systematic review

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been increasingly performed to treat esophageal cancer. Studies published between 1990 and 2012 that described the use of MIE for cancer in at least 50 patients were included for systematic review. The literature search retrieved 34 publications comprising 18 case series, 15 comparative studies, and 1 randomized control trial. Results revealed a wide variability in surgical techniques and perioperative outcomes with a lack of standardized definitions of postoperative complications. In most studies, radical formal lymphadenectomy was not performed and the lymph node harvest fell below the minimum number recommended to achieve survival benefits. There is a need to reach a consensus regarding surgical approaches in MIE, the definition of postoperative complications and the extent of lymphadenectomy before embarking on further randomized controlled trials comparing MIE vs. open approach.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: evolution and review

Esophageal cancer remains one of the most deadly cancers with a low overall 5-year survival rate of 17%. Surgical options for esophageal cancer are varied, and debate exists on the best option. The literature was searched for articles discussing minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) compared with open esophagectomy (OE), and articles were chosen at the discretion of the authors. Several studies have shown that MIE has a statistically significant rate of decreased blood loss, increased length of operative time, shorter hospital stay, and overall decreased morbidity. Anastomotic leak, stricture rate, and survival benefit have also been demonstrated to be similar between OE and MIE. As is made apparent by the small amount of literature on MIE, further research must be done to determine outcomes. Although it is likely that MIE does offer benefits when compared with open surgery, it has not been shown in any large-scale comparative studies.

Initial experience from a large referral center with robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy for oncologic purposes

BACKGROUND

We report our initial experience of patients undergoing robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy (RAIL) for oncologic purposes at a large-referral center.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all consecutive patients undergoing RAIL from 2010-2011 was performed. Basic demographics were recorded. Oncologic variables recorded included: tumor type, location, postoperative tumor margins, and nodal harvest. Immediate 30-day postoperative complications also were analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty patients underwent RAIL with median age of 66 (range 42-82) years. The mean body mass index was 28.6 ± 0.7 kg/m(2); 54% and the majority had an American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of 3. The mean and median number of lymph nodes retrieved during surgery was 20 ± 1.4 and 18.5 respectively. R0 resections were achieved in all patients. Postoperative complications occurred in 14 (28%) patients, including atrial fibrillation in 5 (10%), pneumonia in 5 (10%), anastomotic leak in 1 (2%), conduit staple line leak in 1 (2%), and chyle leak in 2 (4%). The median ICU stay and length of hospitalization (LOH) were 2 and 9 days respectively. Total mean operating time calculated from time of skin incision to wound closure was 445 ± 85 minutes; however, operative times decreased over time. Similarly, there was a trend toward lower complications after the first 29 cases but this did not reach statistical significance. There were no in-hospital mortalities.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that RAIL for esophageal cancer can be performed safely and may be associated with fewer complications after a learning curve, shorter ICU stay, and LOH.

A prospective comparison of totally minimally invasive versus open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy

The majority of esophagectomies in Western parts of the world are performed by a transthoracic approach reflecting the prevalence of adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus or esophagogastric junction. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been reported in a variety of formats, but there are no series that directly compare totally minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic 2 stage esophagectomy (MIE-2) with open Ivor Lewis (IVL). A prospective single-center cohort study of patients undergoing elective MIE-2 or IVL between January 2005 and November 2010 was performed. Short-term clinicopathologic outcomes were recorded using validated systems. One hundred and six patients (median age 66, range 36-85, 88 M : 18 F) underwent two-stage esophagectomy (53 MIE-2 and 53 IVL). Patient demographics (age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, tumor characteristics, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and TNM stage) were comparable between the two groups. Outcomes for MIE-2 and IVL were comparable for anastomotic leak rates (5 [9%] vs. 2 [4%], P= 0.241), resection margin clearance (R0) (43 [81%] vs. 38 [72%], P= 0.253), median lymph node yield (19 vs. 18, P= 0.584), and median length of stay (12 [range 7-91] vs. 12 [range 7-101] days), respectively. Blood loss was significantly less for MIE-2 compared with IVL (median 300 [range 0-1250] mL vs. 400 [range 0-3000] mL, respectively, P= 0.021). MIE-2 in this series of selected patients supports its efficacy, when performed by an experienced minimally invasive surgical team. A well-designed multicenter trial addressing clinical effectiveness is now required.

Intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis using a linear stapler following minimally invasive esophagectomy in the prone position

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in the prone position typically includes thoracoscopic mediastinal dissection and laparoscopic gastric tube construction, followed by esophagogastric anastomosis in the neck. We introduced an intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis using linear staplers.

TECHNIQUE

The lower mediastinal dissection and the gastric tube construction are done in the laparoscopic part of the operation. The esophagus is transected at the cranial level of the aortic arch after the completion of the upper mediastinal lymph node dissection in the prone position. The excess length of the gastric tube is sacrificed before making the anastomosis. Side-to-side esophagogastric anastomosis is performed using a 35-mm endoscopic linear stapler. The entry hole is closed with hand suturing using the posterior and the axillary port.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients with middle or lower esophageal tumor underwent MIE with an intrathoracic anastomosis. The mean thoracoscopic procedure time was 302 min. One patient had an anastomotic leakage, which was successfully managed with drainage. There has been no anastomotic stenosis. Pneumonia was observed in two patients. There was no mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

MIE with an intrathoracic linear-stapled anastomosis with the patient in the prone position is safe and feasible.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer, a randomized controlled trial (ROBOT trial)

BACKGROUND

For esophageal cancer patients, radical esophagolymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of multimodality treatment with curative intent. Transthoracic esophagectomy is the preferred surgical approach worldwide allowing for en-bloc resection of the tumor with the surrounding lymph nodes. However, the percentage of cardiopulmonary complications associated with the transthoracic approach is high (50 to 70%).Recent studies have shown that robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy (RATE) is at least equivalent to the open transthoracic approach for esophageal cancer in terms of short-term oncological outcomes. RATE was accompanied with reduced blood loss, shorter ICU stay and improved lymph node retrieval compared with open esophagectomy, and the pulmonary complication rate, hospital stay and perioperative mortality were comparable. The objective is to evaluate the efficacy, risks, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of RATE as an alternative to open transthoracic esophagectomy for treatment of esophageal cancer.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven monocenter randomized controlled parallel-group, superiority trial. All adult patients (age ≥ 18 and ≤ 80 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3, M0) esophageal carcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus and with European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 will be assessed for eligibility and included after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 112) with resectable esophageal cancer are randomized in the outpatient department to either RATE (n = 56) or open three-stage transthoracic esophageal resection (n = 56). The primary outcome of this study is the percentage of overall complications (grade 2 and higher) as stated by the modified Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications.

DISCUSSION

This is the first randomized controlled trial designed to compare RATE with open transthoracic esophagectomy as surgical treatment for resectable esophageal cancer. If our hypothesis is proven correct, RATE will result in a lower percentage of postoperative complications, lower blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, but with at least similar oncologic outcomes and better postoperative quality of life compared with open transthoracic esophagectomy. The study started in January 2012. Follow-up will be 5 years. Short-term results will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch trial register: NTR3291 ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01544790.

Managing esophageal fistulae by endoscopic transluminal drainage in esophageal cancer patients with superior mediastinal sepsis after esophagectomy

The management of postoperative leaks into the mediastinum after esophagectomy remains a challenge. We describe our clinical management of this complication through endoscopic transluminal drainage. Between 2008 and 2011, 4 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) who underwent McKeown-type esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy experienced complicated anastomotic fistulae in the presence of superior mediastinal sepsis. All 4 patients underwent endoscopic transluminal drainage, and all survived. The mean healing period was 50 days (range, 31 to 58 days), the mean stay in the intensive care unit was 7.3 days (range, 1 to 18 days), and the mean hospital stay was 64.5 days (range, 49 to 70 days). Endoscopically guided transluminal drainage should be considered for ESCC patients with superior mediastinal fistulae after esophagectomy.

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open surgery: is there an advantage?

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal resection is the main method of curative treatment for cancer of the oesophagus. Despite advances in surgical technology and postoperative care, the survival rate and prognosis of people undergoing oesophagectomy is still poor. The use of minimally invasive techniques in oesophageal surgery offers hope of reduced recovery time due to a reduction in surgical trauma. Although the first reports of thoracoscopy- and laparoscopy-assisted oesophagectomy emerged some 20 years ago, there is still no consensus that the outcomes are clearly superior to outcomes following conventional open surgery. Increasingly, some surgeons promote the use of minimally invasive techniques for oesophagectomy but questions remain over its safety and efficacy compared with open surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature to compare minimally invasive techniques for oesophagectomy to open surgery. The outcomes of interest for efficacy and safety included mortality, operative complications, recurrence, and quality of life.

RESULTS

There were 28 included comparative studies. No randomised controlled studies (RCTs) were available and therefore the data need to be interpreted with caution.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations for future research are discussed. We argue that it is difficult to conduct an RCT for this procedure due to ethical considerations and suggest ways that future nonrandomised studies could be improved.

A pilot study of scheduled endoscopic balloon dilation with oral agent tranilast to improve the efficacy of stricture dilation after endoscopic submucosal dissection of the esophagus

BACKGROUNDS AND AIM

As circumferential or near-circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for superficial esophageal neoplasms might evoke refractory strictures, multiple sessions of endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) are required. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of oral agent tranilast with EBD for improving the efficacy of stricture dilation after esophageal ESD.

METHODS

In an open-label prospective study at a single institution, 31 asymptomatic consecutive patients with superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinomas were enrolled from April 2007 to October 2010. After ESD, we performed scheduled EBD (twice weekly for 4 wk) with or without administration of oral agent tranilast for 8 weeks. Thereafter, we added additional EBD on the basis of solid criteria-for example, patient's awareness of vomiting >1/wk and inability of passage of routine endoscope through the ESD site. We compared the rates of post-ESD strictures and the numbers of additional EBD sessions for 48 weeks after ESD and the Dysphagia score between tranilast (T)-group and none (N)-group, based on patients' subjective symptoms, at 16, 24, and 48 weeks after ESD.

RESULTS

The percentage of post-ESD strictures in T-group was significantly lower than that in N-group (P=0.04). The median numbers of additional EBD sessions and Dysphagia score at 16 and 24 weeks after ESD in T-group were significantly smaller than those in N-group (P=0.0138, 0.002, 0.005, respectively). No adverse events and no recurrence were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated for the first time that scheduled EBD combined with oral agent tranilast might be effective and safe for improving the efficacy of stricture dilation after esophageal ESD.

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for esophageal cancer attenuates postoperative systemic responses and pulmonary complications

BACKGROUND

Less invasive operations such as laparoscopic surgery have been developed for treating gastrointestinal malignancies. However, the advantages of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for esophageal cancer (VATS-e) with regard to postoperative morbidity and mortality remains controversial.

METHODS

We investigated the postoperative clinical course of patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in terms of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) induced by VATS-e (VATS-e group) or conventional open surgery (OS group) combined with laparoscopic gastric tube reconstruction.

RESULTS

Compared with the OS group (n = 27), the VATS-e group (n = 22) had a greater thoracic operation time (VATS-e versus OS, 181 ± 56 vs 143 ± 45 minutes, respectively), and lesser duration of stay in the intensive care unit (17 ± 2 vs 32 ± 21 hours, respectively). The VATS-e group also had a lesser SIRS duration (1.5 vs 4.3 days), a lesser incidence of SIRS, a lesser number of positive SIRS criteria, and lesser serum interleukin-6 levels immediately after operation and on postoperative day (POD) 1. The heart rate in the VATS-e group was less than that in the OS group on POD 3. The respiratory rate in the VATS-e group was significantly less than that in the OS group on PODs 3, 5, and 7. Although no difference was observed in the frequencies of postoperative complications between the 2 groups, the VATS-e group had less postoperative pneumonia.

CONCLUSION

VATS-e attenuates postoperative SIRS, and is therefore a potentially less invasive operative procedure.

Modified pleural tenting for prevention of anastomotic leak after Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy

BACKGROUND

The most dangerous complication following esophagogastrectomy for esophageal cancer is anastomotic leakage. Surgical interventions described did not have a major impact in reducing the risk of occurrence. On the other hand, pleural tenting has been used for more than a decade by thoracic surgeons to prevent prolonged air leak after formal upper lobectomy with excellent results.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 114 cases of esophagogastrectomy for cancer of esophagus or cardioesophageal junction is presented. Patients have been divided in 2 groups. In group B modified pleural tenting was used to prevent a potential anastomotic leak, while in group A, the control group, pleural tenting was not used. Evaluation of modified pleural tenting in preventing anastomotic leakage was the aim of the study.

RESULTS

The pleural tenting group showed a significant decrease in anastomotic leak. In 1 patient versus 8 in group without pleural tenting the complication appeared (P = .032). The risk for an anastomotic leakage in group without pleural tenting was almost 9 times greater (odds ratio: 9.143, 95% confidence interval: lower bound 1.104, upper bound 75.708). The 30-day mortality, although lower in pleural tenting group, was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Pleural tenting is a safe, fast, and effective technique for prevention of anastomotic leakage after Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy. Subpleural blanketing of intrathoracic anastomosis could diminish the consequences of a possible anastomotic leak.

Effectiveness of combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy: comparison of postoperative complications and midterm oncological outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

During esophagectomy, laparoscopy can be used together with thoracoscopy, but it is not known whether a combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic procedure is associated with fewer postoperative complications than open esophagectomy, and without compromising oncological outcome.

METHODS

This was a longitudinal cohort study that included 185 esophageal cancer patients, including 72 who underwent combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy (TLE), 34 who underwent thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE), and 79 who underwent open esophagectomy (OE) between January 2002 and May 2010. The main outcome measures were postoperative respiratory and overall complications. The secondary outcome was 2-year relapse-free survival (RFS).

RESULTS

Respiratory complications occurred in 9 patients who underwent TLE, 13 who underwent TE, and 31 who underwent OE. TLE was associated with fewer respiratory complications (TLE vs. OE: odds ratio [OR], 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09-0.53 and TE vs. OE: OR, 0.71; 95% CI 0.29-1.76). Overall complications occurred in 34 patients who underwent TLE, 20 who underwent TE, and 54 who underwent OE. TLE was associated with fewer overall complications (TLE vs. OE: OR, 0.47; 95% CI 0.23-0.94 and TE vs. OE: OR, 0.51; 95% CI 0.21-1.25). The 2-year RFS rates were similar among the three groups: 71.6% for TLE, 57.7% for TE, and 58.3% for OE (TLE vs. OE: hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI 0.35-1.20 and TE vs. OE: hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI 0.45-1.82).

CONCLUSION

Unlike TE, TLE was associated with fewer postoperative complications than was OE, with no compromise of 2-year RFS. A randomized controlled trial with longer follow-up is needed.

Discrete-choice preference comparison between patients and doctors for the surgical management of oesophagogastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Establishing preferences for surgery is paramount to preoperative patient counselling. This study aimed to prioritize and compare preferences of patients and doctors towards surgery for oesophagogastric cancer, to aid the counselling process.

METHODS

A discrete-choice questionnaire containing hypothetical scenarios was designed to test patient preferences for six treatment attributes: mortality, morbidity, quality of life (QoL), cure rate, hospital type and surgeon's reputation. The survey was mailed to all patients who underwent oesophagogastric cancer resection from 2008 to 2009 at two teaching hospital sites. All doctors at these sites with previous experience in counselling patients for cancer surgery were also identified and presented with the survey. Results were analysed using a random-effects probit regression model. Spearman correlation was used to compare participants' implicit choices from the discrete-choice scenarios (their true preferences) with their explicit choices from the direct ranking of preferences (their perceived preferences).

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients and 90 doctors completed the survey. Some 15 per cent of patients and 31 per cent of doctors based their choices solely on QoL. In order of importance, patients based their implicit responses on QoL (β = 1.19), cure rate (β = 0.82), morbidity (β = - 0.70), surgeon's reputation (β = 0.60), mortality (β = - 0.57) and hospital type (β = 0.26). Doctors similarly indicated QoL (β = 1.14) and hospital type (β = 0.31) as highest and lowest preferences respectively, but placed far greater emphasis on mortality (β = - 0.80) than morbidity (β = - 0.35). Implicit and explicit preferences correlated only for morbidity and surgeon's reputation in the patient cohort.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians may better meet patients' expectations and facilitate informed decision-making if QoL, cure rate and morbidity are emphasized foremost. A similar study employing preoperative patients is warranted for further clarification of preferences.