Review of open and minimal access approaches to oesophagectomy for cancer

Is laparoscope surgery feasible for upper gastrointestinal cancer patients with a history of abdominal surgery?

Objective

To investigate the feasibility of laparoscopic abdominal mobilization in patients with cancers of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction who have a history of abdominal surgery.

Methods

A total of 132 patients who underwent resection for cancers of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction from August 2018 to March 2022 in the Department of Thoracic Surgery, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, were selected (66 patients with a history of abdominal surgery (observation group) and 66 patients without a history of abdominal surgery (control group)). All patients were treated with preoperative neoadjuvant therapy, based on the clinical stage. Thoracoscopic and laparoscopic resection was performed under general anesthesia. The intraoperative and postoperative conditions and surgical complications were compared between the two groups.

Results

No significant differences were found in baseline data between the observation group and the control group (p > 0.05). Laparoscopic abdominal mobilization was completed in both groups, and there were no significant differences between the two groups in the total operation time [(272.50 ± 86.45) min vs. (257.55 ± 67.96) min], abdominal mobilization time [(25.03 ± 9.82) min vs. (22.53 ± 3.88) min], blood loss [(119.09 ± 72.17) ml vs. (104.39 ± 43.82) ml], and postoperative time to first flatus [(3.44 ± 0.73) d vs. (3.29 ± 0.60) d] (p > 0.05). The abdominal mobilization time was longer in observation group than that in control group (p = 0.057). After excluding the patients (31/66) with a history of simple appendectomy from the observation group, the abdominal mobilization time was significantly longer in observation group than that in control group [(27.97 ± 12.16) min vs. (22.53 ± 3.88) min] (p < 0.05). There were significantly fewer dissected abdominal lymph nodes in the observation group than in the control group [(18.44 ± 10.87) vs. (23.09 ± 10.95), p < 0.05]. After excluding the patients (15/66) with a history of abdominal tumor surgery from the observation group, there was no significant difference in the number of dissected abdominal lymph nodes between the two groups [(20.62 ± 10.81) vs. (23.09 ± 10.95)] (p > 0.05).In addition, no postoperative complications, such as intestinal obstruction, abdominal infection and bleeding, occurred in either group.

Conclusion

Patients with cancers of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction who have a history of abdominal surgery are suitable for minimally invasive laparoscopic mobilization.

Robotic Esophagectomy Trends and Early Surgical Outcomes: The US Experience

BACKGROUND

Recent esophagectomy trends were evaluated to describe the shift in surgical approach and outcomes using The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database.

METHODS

All patients who underwent an esophagectomy with gastric conduit from 2015 to 2019 were identified and analyzed according to original intended approach. After performing volume trend analysis of patients, operative outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 10,607 patients, esophagectomy was open in 5763 (54.3%), minimally invasive (MIE) in 3524 (33.2%), and robotic (RAMIE) in 1320 (12.4%). Within 5 years, MIE and RAMIE combined rose to majority approach (open from 58% to 42% of annual volume). While MIE and RAMIE were associated with higher rates of anastomotic leak, loss of conduit, pulmonary embolus, and reoperation, R0 resection and harvested number of lymph nodes exceeded those in open approaches. Operative mortality did not differ by approach (3.21% open vs 2.72% MIE vs 2.50% RAMIE; P = .2329). On multivariable analysis, RAMIE was independently associated with higher rate of anastomotic leak compared to open (adjusted odds ratio 1.53, 95% CI 1.14-2.04), while both MIE and RAMIE had lower mean length of stay. Propensity matching of 1320 pairs found a higher risk of anastomotic leak requiring surgery for RAMIE compared with MIE (adjusted odds ratio 1.39, 95% CI 1.01-1.92).

CONCLUSIONS

In less than a decade, the dominant surgical approach in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database has become minimally invasive (RAMIE and MIE). While anastomotic leak and reoperation, more common in RAMIE, require a technical solution, these complications have not raised operative mortality. Further studies are needed to address long-term results and oncologic outcome.

Clinical comparative study of glasses-free 3D and 2D thoracoscopic surgery in minimally invasive esophagectomy

Objective

To investigate the safety and efficacy of glasses-free three-dimensional (3D) thoracoscopic surgery in minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).

Methods

The clinical data of 98 patients, including 81 men and 17 women aged 45–77 years, with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent minimally invasive thoracoscopic esophagectomy from January 2017 to December 2019 [3 years, with clinical follow-up time: 1 year~4 years (2017.01–2020.12)] were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups according to different surgical methods including a glasses-free 3D thoracoscopic group (G-3D group: 38 patients) and a two-dimesional (2D) thoracoscopic group (2D group: 60 patients). The clinical outcome of the two groups were compared.

Results

The operation time of the thoracoscopic part in the G-3D group was significantly shorter than that in the 2D group (P<0.05). The total number of lymph node dissection in the G-3D group was more than that in the 2D group (P<0.05). The thoracic indwelling time, postoperative hospital stay, severe pulmonary infection, arrhythmia, anastomotic leakage, chylothorax, and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury were not significantly different between the two groups (P>0.05). There was also no significant difference between the two groups on the progression-free survival (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Glasses-free 3D thoracoscopic surgery for esophageal cancer is a safe and effective surgical procedure. Compared with 2D thoracoscopic MIE, glasses-free 3D thoracoscopic MIE for esophageal cancer has higher safety, more lymph node dissection, and higher operation efficiency through the optimized surgical operations. We believe that glasses-free 3D thoracoscopy for MIE is worthy of clinical promotion.

A refined procedure for esophageal resection using a full minimally invasive approach

Objective

Newer minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy have brought substantial benefits to esophageal-cancer patients and continue to improve. We report here our experience with a streamlined procedure as part of a comprehensive perioperative-care program that provides additional advances in the continued evolution of this procedure.

Methods

All patients with primary esophageal cancer referred for resection to the Oakland Medical Center of the Kaiser-Permanente Northern California health plan who underwent this approach between January 2013 and August 2018 were included. Operative and clinical outcome variables were extracted from the electronic medical record, operating-room files, and manual chart review.

Results

142 patients underwent the new procedure and care program; 121 (85.2%) were men with mean age of 64.5 years. 127 (89.4%) were adenocarcinoma; 117 (82.4%) were clinical stage III or IVA. 115 (81.0%) required no jejunostomy. Median hospital length-of-stay was 3 days and 8 (5.6%) patients required admission to the intensive care unit. Postoperative complications occurred in 22 (15.5%) patients within 30 days of the procedure. There were no inpatient deaths; one patient (0.7%) died within 30 days following discharge and three additional deaths (2.1%) occurred through 90 days of follow-up.

Conclusions

This approach resulted in excellent clinical outcomes, including short hospital stays with limited need for the intensive care unit, few perioperative complications, and relatively few patients requiring feeding tubes on discharge. This comprehensive approach to esophagectomy is feasible and provides another clinically meaningful advance in the progress of minimally invasive esophagectomy. Further development and dissemination of this method is warranted.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13019-022-01765-2.

Advantages of McKeown minimally invasive oesophagectomy for the treatment of oesophageal cancer: propensity score matching analysis of 169 cases

BACKGROUND

Oesophagectomy, the gold standard for oesophageal cancer treatment, causes significantly high morbidity and mortality. McKeown minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIE) is preferred for treating oesophageal malignancies; however, limited studies with large sample sizes focusing on the surgical and oncological outcomes of this procedure have been reported. We aimed to compare the clinical safety and efficacy of McKeown MIE with those of open oesophagectomy (OE).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Overall, 338 oesophageal cancer patients matched by gender, age, location, size, and T and N stages (McKeown MIE: 169 vs OE: 169) were analysed. The clinicopathologic features, operational factors, postoperative complications, and prognoses were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

McKeown MIE resulted in less bleeding (200 mL vs 300 mL, p<0.01), longer operation time (335.0 h vs 240.0 h, p<0.01), and higher number of harvested lymph nodes (22 vs 9, p<0.01) than OE did. Although the rate of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury in the two groups was not significantly different, incidence of anastomotic leakage (8 vs 24, p=0.003) was significantly lower in the McKeown MIE group. In addition, patients who underwent McKeown MIE had higher 5-year overall survival than those who underwent OE (69.9% vs 40.4%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

McKeown MIE is proved to be feasible and safe to achieve better surgical and oncological outcomes for oesophageal cancer compared with OE.

Does thoracoscopic esophagectomy really reduce post-operative pneumonia in all cases?

It has been said that "thoracoscopy suppresses the occurrence of pneumonia in comparison to thoracotomy", but does it reflect real clinical practice? To resolve this clinical question, we compared the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies from limited institutes (CLIs) in which a large number of high-volume centers were the main participants to those of retrospective cohort studies based on nationwide databases (CNDs) in which both high-volume centers and low-volume hospitals participated. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the short-term outcomes of thoracoscopic to open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in the three above-mentioned research formats. In total, 43 studies with 21,057 patients, which included 1 RCT with 115 patients, 38 CLIs with 6,126 patients and 4 CNDs with 14,816 patients, were selected. Pneumonia was one of the most important complications. Although significant superiority in thoracoscopic esophagectomy was observed in RCTs (p = 0.005) and CLIs (p = 0.003), no such difference was seen in findings using nationwide databases (p = 0.69). In conclusion, unlike RCTs and CLIs, CNDs did not show the superiority of thoracoscopic surgery in terms of post-operative pneumonia. RCTs and CLIs were predominantly performed by high-volume hospitals, while CNDs were often performed by low-volume hospitals. In actual clinical practice including various types of hospitals, the superiority of thoracoscopic over open esophagectomy regarding the incidence of pneumonia may, therefore, decrease.

Comparative outcomes of transthoracic versus transhiatal esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection has become a mainstay of therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer and can increase survival significantly. With the advancement of minimally invasive surgery, there is still debate on the best approach for esophagectomy. We report a modern analysis of outcomes with transthoracic versus transhiatal esophagectomy.

METHODS

A prospectively managed esophagectomy database was queried for patients undergoing transthoracic or transhiatal esophagectomy between 1996 and 2016. Continuous variables were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis or the analysis of variance tests as appropriate. Pearson χ² test was used to compare categorical variables. All statistical tests were 2-sided and an α (type I) error < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 846 patients underwent esophagectomy with a median age of 66 (28-86) years. There was no difference in estimated blood loss for transthoracic and transhiatal, but mean operating room times were longer for transthoracic versus transhiatal (P < .001), and the number of retrieved lymph nodes was higher for transthoracic versus transhiatal (P < .002). Postoperative complications occurred in 207 (29%) transthoracic patients vs 59 (44.7%) transhiatal patients, (P < .001). The most common complications in transthoracic versus transhiatal techniques, respectively, were anastomotic leaks: 4.3% vs 9.8%; (P = .01), anastomotic stricture 7% vs 26.5%; (P < .001), and pneumonia 12.6% vs 22.7%; (P < .002). Median survival significantly improved in patients undergoing transthoracic (62 months) vs transhiatal (39 months) P = .03.

CONCLUSION

We found that a transthoracic approach was associated with lower pneumonias, anastomotic leaks, wound infections, and strictures, with an improvement in nodal harvest. Survival was also significantly improved in patients who underwent transthoracic esophagectomy.

Three-tube method and covered metallic stent for the treatment of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage is common and life-threatening complication after esophagectomy. The management of esophageal anastomotic leakage remains challenging. We aimed to determine the safety, feasibility and efficacy of three-tube method and covered metallic stent placement for the management of anastomotic leakage.

METHODS

Twenty-six consecutive patients with anastomotic leakage were treated using three-tube method and covered metallic stent and the medical records were retrospectively assessed. All patients received placement of abscess drainage tube, jejunal feeding tube and gastrointestinal decompression tube as well as esophageal covered stent, followed by continue abscess drainage, nutritional support and anti-inflammatory treatment. Tubes and esophageal stents will be removed once anastomotic leakage heals.

RESULTS

The procedure was technically successful in 23 patients (95.8%). A total of 31 covered stents were used. Esophageal stents and abscess drainage tubes were successfully removed from 14 patients. The median retention duration was 2.3 months and 2.6 months for stent and abscess drainage tubes, respectively. No perioperative death, esophageal rupture, massive hemorrhage, or other severe complications were observed during procedures. The abscess cavity had markedly decreased in 8 patients or disappeared in 16 cases. During follow-up, 8 patients died of cancer recurrence and 2 patients died of severe pulmonary infection. The 1-, 3-, 5-year survival rates were 60.1, 51.5 and 51.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Three-tube method and covered metallic stent placement is safe, feasible and efficacious for treatment of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy.

Major Postoperative Complications in Esophageal Cancer After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Compared With Open Esophagectomy: An Updated Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the existing literature comparing cardiopulmonary complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with open esophagectomy (OE) and conduct a meta-analysis based on the relevant studies.

METHODS

A systematic search for articles was performed in Medline, Embase, Wiley Online Library, and the Cochrane Library. The relative risks or odds ratios (ORs) were calculated by using fixed or random-effects models. The I² and X² tests were used to test for statistical heterogeneity. We performed a metaregression for the pulmonary complications with the adenocarcinoma proportion and tumor stage. Publication bias and small-study effects were assessed using Egger's test and Begg's funnel plot.

RESULTS

A total of 30,850 participants were enrolled in the 63 studies evaluated in the meta-analysis. Arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism, pulmonary complications, gastric tip necrosis, anastomotic leakage, and vocal cord palsy were chosen as outcomes. The occurrence rate of arrhythmia was significantly lower in patients receiving MIE than in patients receiving OE (OR = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.53-0.89), with heterogeneity (I² = 30.7%, P = 0.067). The incidence of pulmonary complications was significantly lower in patients receiving MIE (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.45-0.63) but heterogeneity remained (I² = 72.1%, P = 0.000). The risk of gastric tip necrosis (OR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.07-2.05) after OE was lower than that after MIE. Anastomotic leakage, pulmonary embolism, and vocal cord palsy showed no significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

MIE has advantages over OE, especially in reducing the incidence of arrhythmia and pulmonary complications. Thus, MIE can be recommended as the preferred alternative surgery method for resectable esophageal cancer.

Covered metallic stent for the treatment of malignant esophageal fistula combined with stricture

Background

Esophageal fistula and stricture is rare but life-threatening complication for esophageal cancer. The management of esophageal fistula and stricture remains challenging. We aimed to determine the safety, feasibility and efficacy of covered metallic stent and three tubes placement for the management of esophageal fistula and stricture.

Methods

Between May 2012 and March 2018, all patients with esophageal fistula and stricture were treated using three tubes or covered metallic stent placement. Patients in group A received covered stents and three tubes placement. Patients in group B only received three tubes placement. Continue abscess drainage and nutritional support was performed after procedure. Three tubes or esophageal stents were removed once esophageal fistula heals. The related medical records were retrospectively assessed.

Results

Thirty-seven consecutive patients with esophageal fistula and stricture were enrolled, including 26 patients in group A and 11 patients in group B. Stent placement procedure was technically successful in 25 patients (96.2%). A total of 42 covered stents were inserted. Seventeen esophageal stents were successfully removed from 10 patients. The median retention duration was 3.3 months and 3.4 months for stent and abscess drainage tubes, respectively. One perioperative death due to massive hemorrhage was observed 21 days after stent placement. The abscess cavity was decreased or disappeared in 17 cases and 4 cases in group A and group B, respectively. During follow up, patients in group A still showed a significant better condition of normal diet than that in group B (p < 0.05). Fourteen patients died of cancer recurrence, 3 patients died of massive digestive bleeding and 2 patients died of severe pulmonary infection. The median survivals were 14.8 months and 13.2 months for group A and group B, respectively.

Conclusions

Covered metallic stent placement is safe, feasible and efficacious for treatment of esophageal fistula and stricture, with a better condition of normal diet than patients only received three tubes placement.

Comparative Perioperative Outcomes by Esophagectomy Surgical Technique

INTRODUCTION

Surgical resection is vital in the curative management of patients with esophageal cancer. However, a myriad of surgical procedures exists based on surgeon preference and training. We report on the perioperative outcomes based on esophagectomy surgical technique.

METHODS

A prospectively managed esophagectomy database was queried for patients undergoing esophagectomy from 1996 and 2016. Basic demographics, tumor characteristics, operative details, and post-operative outcomes were recorded and analyzed by comparison of transhiatal vs Ivor-lewis and minimally invasive (MIE) vs open procedures.

RESULTS

We identified 856 patients who underwent esophagectomy. Neoadjuvant therapy was administered in 543 patients (63.4%). There were 504 (58.8%) open esophagectomies and 302 (35.2%) MIE. There were 13 (1.5%) mortalities and this did not differ among techniques (p = 0.6). While there was no difference in overall complications between MIE and open, complications occurred less frequently in patients undergoing RAIL and MIE IVL compared to other techniques (p = 0.003). Pulmonary complications also occurred less frequently in RAIL and MIE IVL (p < 0.001). Anastomotic leaks were less common in patients who underwent IVL compared to trans-hiatal approaches (p = 0.03). MIE patients were more likely to receive neoadjuvant therapy (p = 0.001), have lower blood loss (p < 0.001), have longer operations (p < 0.001), and higher lymph node harvests (p < 0.001) compared to open patients.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive and robotic Ivor Lewis techniques demonstrated substantial benefits in post-operative complications. Oncologic outcomes similarly favor MIE IVL and RAIL.

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.

Postoperative short-term outcomes of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to synthesize the available evidence regarding short‐term outcomes between minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE).

Methods

Studies were identified by searching databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library up to March 2019 without language restrictions. Results of these searches were filtered according to a set of eligibility criteria and analyzed in line with PRISMA guidelines.

Results

There were 33 studies included with a total of 13 269 patients in our review, out of which 4948 cases were of MIE and 8321 cases were of OE. The pooled results suggested that MIE had a better outcome regarding all‐cause respiratory complications (RCs) (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.41–0.78, P = <0.001), in‐hospital duration (SMD = −0.51; 95% CI = −0.78−0.24; P = <0.001), and blood loss (SMD = −1.44; 95% CI = −1.95−0.93; P = <0.001). OE was associated with shorter duration of operation time, while no statistically significant differences were observed regarding other outcomes. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed for a number of different postoperative events.

Conclusions

Our study indicated that MIE had more favorable outcomes than OE from the perspective of short‐term outcomes. Further large‐scale, multicenter randomized control trials are needed to explore the long‐term survival outcomes after MIE versus OE.

The survival impact of postoperative complications after curative resection in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: propensity score-matching analysis

PURPOSE

The relationship between postoperative complications and long-term survival after surgery for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is controversial.

METHOD

A total of 210 patients with ESCC who underwent subtotal esophagectomy with a reconstructed gastric tube were investigated according to the development of postoperative complications. The associations of age, gender, T and N factors, and pStage with grade 0-2 complications (NSC) and grade 3 and higher complications (SC) were compared by propensity score-matching analysis. Fifty-one pairs of NSC and SC groups were selected for the final analysis. We divided 102 patients between the NSC and SC groups or between the no pulmonary complication (NPC) and the pulmonary complication (PC) groups. The overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were determined by the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared by log-rank tests. Possible predictors of OS and DFS were subjected to univariate analysis and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis.

RESULTS

The propensity score matching revealed that the 5-year OS and DFS of the NSC group were not different from those of the SC group. However, the 5-year OS of the PC group was significantly worse than that of the NPC group, while no significant differences were observed in the DFS between the PC and NPC groups. In the multivariate analysis, UICC pStage, pulmonary complication, and American Heart Association (AHA) classification for OS and UICC pStage for DFS were significant prognostic factors.

CONCLUSION

The OS and DFS did not differ in patients with or without severe postoperative complications. However, postoperative pulmonary complications were independent predictors of poorer OS, but not DFS, in patients who underwent R0 resection for ESCC.

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.

Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Thoracolaparoscopic Esophagectomy Versus Open Transthoracic Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The standard curative treatment for patients with esophageal cancer is perioperative chemotherapy or preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by open transthoracic esophagectomy (OTE). Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy (RAMIE) may reduce complications.

METHODS

A single-center randomized controlled trial was conducted, assigning 112 patients with resectable intrathoracic esophageal cancer to either RAMIE or OTE. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of overall surgery-related postoperative complications (modified Clavien-Dindo classification grade 2-5).

RESULTS

Overall surgery-related postoperative complications occurred less frequently after RAMIE (59%) compared to OTE (80%) [risk ratio with RAMIE (RR) 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.57-0.96; P = 0.02]. RAMIE resulted in less median blood loss (400 vs 568 mL, P <0.001), a lower percentage of pulmonary complications (RR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34-0.85; P = 0.005) and cardiac complications (RR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.27-0.83; P = 0.006) and lower mean postoperative pain (visual analog scale, 1.86 vs 2.62; P < 0.001) compared to OTE. Functional recovery at postoperative day 14 was better in the RAMIE group [RR 1.48 (95% CI, 1.03-2.13; P = 0.038)] with better quality of life score at discharge [mean difference quality of life score 13.4 (2.0-24.7, p = 0.02)] and 6 weeks postdischarge [mean difference 11.1 quality of life score (1.0-21.1; P = 0.03)]. Short- and long-term oncological outcomes were comparable at a medium follow-up of 40 months.

CONCLUSIONS

RAMIE resulted in a lower percentage of overall surgery-related and cardiopulmonary complications with lower postoperative pain, better short-term quality of life, and a better short-term postoperative functional recovery compared to OTE. Oncological outcomes were comparable and in concordance with the highest standards nowadays.

Interventional Protocol for Treatment of Complications after Esophagojejunostomy for Esophagogastric Carcinoma

Background

Anastomotic stenosis and leakage are rare complications after esophagojejunostomy. The management of complications after esophagojejunostomy remains a challenge. We evaluated the outcomes and clinical effectiveness of an alternative interventional protocol.

Objectives

To determine the safety and efficacy of interventional treatment for the management of complications after esophagojejunostomy.

Methods

This study included 24 consecutive patients with complications after esophagojejunostomy treated using interventional protocol. Patients received balloon dilation or stenting for anastomotic stenosis. Patients with anastomotic leakage received three-tube placement or retrievable covered esophageal stent placement, followed by abscess drainage, nutritional support, and anti-inflammatory treatment. The three tubes and esophageal stents were removed after leakage healing and stenosis ceased.

Results

Thirteen patients received three-tube method, and 16 patients received covered stent placement. All procedures were technically successful, except for a failure of Y-type esophageal stent placement in one patient. The median retention time of stent and abscess drainage tube was 67.5 days and 87 days, respectively. No perioperative death, esophageal rupture, or massive hemorrhage was found during procedures. During follow-up, 14 patients died of cancer recurrence, and one died of severe pulmonary infection. The 1-, 3-, 5-year survival rates were 39.5%, 23.7%, and 23.7%, respectively.

Conclusion

Interventional protocol is safe, feasible, and efficacious for treatment of complications after esophagojejunostomy.

Efficacy of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy vs open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The first line treatment regimen for esophageal cancer is still surgical resection and the choice of surgical scheme depends on surgeon. Now the efficacy comparison of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) is still controversial.

AIM

To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of HMIE and OE in patients with esophageal cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for related articles. The odds ratio (OR) or standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to evaluate the effectiveness of HMIE and OE.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies including a total of 2397 patients were selected. HMIE was significantly associated with less blood loss (SMD = -0.43, 95%CI: -0.66, -0.20; P = 0.0002) and lower incidence of pulmonary complications (OR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.57, 0.90; P = 0.004). No significant differences were seen in the lymph node yield (SMD = 0.11, 95%CI: -0.08, 0.30; P = 0.26), operation time (SMD = 0.24, 95%CI: -0.14, 0.61; P = 0.22), total complications rate (OR = 0.68, 95%CI: 0.46, 0.99; P = 0.05), cardiac complication rate (OR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.62, 1.34; P = 0.64), anastomotic leak rate (OR = 0.95, 95%CI: 0.67, 1.35; P = 0.78), duration of intensive care unit stay (SMD = -0.01, 95%CI: -0.21, 0.19; P = 0.93), duration of hospital stay (SMD = -0.13, 95%CI: -0.28, 0.01; P = 0.08), and total mortality rates (OR = 0.70, 95%CI: 0.47, 1.06; P = 0.09) between the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the OE, HMIE shows less blood loss and pulmonary complications. However, further studies are necessary to evaluate the long-term oncologic outcomes of HMIE.

Interventional radiology protocol for treatment of esophagogastric anastomotic leakage

PURPOSE

We aimed to determine the safety, feasibility and efficacy of interventional radiology method for the management of esophagogastric anastomotic leakage.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed the medical records of 23 consecutive patients with esophagogastric anastomotic leakage treated using intervention protocol. Patients received three-tube method (abscess drainage tube, gastrointestinal decompression tube and jejunal feeding tube) with or without temporary covered esophageal stent placement. Abscess drainage, anti-inflammatory treatment and nutritional support were performed thereafter. The esophageal stents and three tubes were removed after leakage healing.

RESULTS

All patient received three-tube method and eight patients received covered stent placement. All operations were technically successful. After a median of 2.4 months, the stents were successfully removed from five patients. No death, esophageal rupture or massive hemorrhage occurred during procedures. The abscess cavity had markedly decreased in seven patients or disappeared in 16 cases. During follow-up, four patients died of cancer recurrence, one died of heart dysfunction and one died of pulmonary infection. The 1-, 3-, 5-year survival rates were 86.4%, 52.3% and 52.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Interventional radiology protocol is safe, feasible and efficacious for treatment for esophagogastric anastomotic leakage.

Robot-assisted esophagectomy (RAE) versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: protocol for a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial (RAMIE trial, robot-assisted minimally invasive Esophagectomy)

Background

Currently, there are three main surgical approaches for resectable esophageal cancer: open transthoracic esophagectomy (OTE), conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot-assisted esophagectomy (RAE). Previous studies had demonstrated the better short-term outcomes in MIE or RAE when compared to OTE, respectively. However, to date, no prospective study was designed to compare these two minimally invasive approaches (MIE and RAE). The primary objective of this study is to compare the outcomes on survival, safety and efficacy, quality of life between RAE and MIE in the treatment for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

Methods

This study is designed as a multicenter, prospective, randomized, non-inferiority phase III clinical trial, investigating the safety and efficacy of RAE compared with MIE in the treatment of resectable ESCC. Eligible patients are randomly assigned to either RAE (n = 180) or MIE (n = 180) group. The follow-up visits will be scheduled at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in the first two years, and then every 6 months until the end of the study. During the follow-up period, clinical data and quality of life questionnaires will be examined. The primary endpoint is the 5-year overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints are 3-year OS, 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), short-term outcomes as well as quality of life.

Discussion

This is the first prospectively randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAE with MIE as surgical treatment for resectable ESCC. According to our hypothesis, RAE will result in at least similar oncologic outcomes and long-term quality of life, but with a shorter operation time, lower percentage of perioperative complications, lower blood loss, and shorter hospital stay when compared with MIE. This study started in July 2017. Follow-up will terminate after 5 years from the time when the last patient was enrolled.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT03094351 (March 29, 2017). The trial was prospectively registered.

Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive and robotic-assisted esophagectomy

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has demonstrated superior outcomes compared to open approaches. The myriad of techniques has precluded the recommendation of a standard approach. The addition of robotics to esophageal resection has potential benefits. We sought to examine the outcomes with MIE to include robotics.

METHODS

Utilizing a prospective esophagectomy database, we identified patients who underwent (MIE) Ivor Lewis via thoracoscopic/laparoscopic (TL), transhiatal (TH), or robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis (RAIL). Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and complications were analyzed via ANOVA, χ², and Fisher exact where appropriate.

RESULTS

We identified 302 patients who underwent MIE: TL 95 (31.5%), TH 63 (20.8%), and RAIL 144 (47.7%) with a mean age of 65 ± 9.6. The length of operation was longer in the RAIL: TL (299 ± 87), TH (231 ± 65), RAIL (409 ± 104 min), p < 0.001. However, the EBL was lower in the patients undergoing transthoracic approaches (RAIL + TL): TL (189 ± 188 ml), TH (242 ± 380 ml), RAIL (155 ± 107 ml), p = 0.03. Conversion to open was also lower in these patients: TL 7 (7.4%), TH 8 (12.7%), RAIL 0, p < 0.001. The R0 resection rate and lymph node (LN) harvest also favored the RAIL cohort: TL 86 (93.5%), TH 60 (96.8%), and RAIL 144 (100%), p = 0.01; LN: TL 14 ± 7, TH 9 ± 6, and RAIL 20 ± 9, p < 0.001. The overall morbidity was lower in MIE patients that underwent a transthoracic approach vs. transhiatal: TL 29 (30.5%), TH 39 (61.9%), RAIL 34 (23.6%), p < 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing MIE via thoracoscopic/laparoscopic and robotic transthoracic approaches demonstrated lower EBL, morbidity, and conversion to open compared to the transhiatal approach. Additionally the oncologic outcomes measured by R0 resections and LN harvest also favored the patients who underwent a transthoracic approach.

Early Quality of Life Outcomes After Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive and Open Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy may improve some perioperative outcomes over open approaches; effects on quality of life are less clear.

METHODS

A prospective trial of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) and open esophagectomy was initiated, measuring quality of life via the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophageal and Brief Pain Inventory. Mixed generalized linear models assessed associations between quality of life scores over time and by surgery type.

RESULTS

In total, 106 patients underwent open esophagectomy; 64 underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (98% RAMIE). The groups did not differ in age, sex, comorbidities, histologic subtype, stage, or induction treatment (P = .42 to P > .95). Total Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophageal scores were lower at 1 month (P < .001), returned to near baseline by 4 months, and did not differ between groups (P = .83). Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity (P = .007) and interference (P = .004) were lower for RAMIE. RAMIE had lower estimated blood loss (250 vs 350 cm³; P < .001), shorter length of stay (9 vs 11 days; P < .001), fewer intensive care unit admissions (8% vs 20%; P = .033), more lymph nodes harvested (25 vs 22; P = .05), and longer surgical time (6.4 vs 5.4 hours; P < .001). Major complications (39% for RAMIE vs 52% for open esophagectomy; P > .95), anastomotic leak (3% vs 9%; P = .41), and 90-day mortality (2% vs 4%; P = .85) did not differ between groups. Pulmonary (14% vs 34%; P = .014) and infectious (17% vs 36%; P = .029) complications were lower for RAMIE.

CONCLUSIONS

RAMIE is associated with lower immediate postoperative pain severity and interference and decreased pulmonary and infectious complications. Ongoing data accrual will assess mid-term and long-term outcomes in this cohort.

Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Patients with cT3/Nearly T4 Esophageal Cancer: Is Sarcopenia Correlated with Postoperative Complications and Prognosis?

BACKGROUND

Since the clinical impact of sarcopenia on multimodal therapy for patients with esophageal cancer is not well understood, this study was conducted to determine the influence of sarcopenia on the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) for locally advanced esophageal cancer.

METHODS

The skeletal muscle index was quantified at the level of the third lumbar vertebra on computed tomography images, and sarcopenia was defined as a skeletal muscle index that was less than the average for each gender. We compared treatment outcomes in patients with cT3 and nearly T4 thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma between the sarcopenia group (n = 85) and the non-sarcopenia group (n = 72).

RESULTS

The 5-year survival rates were 33.4% in the non-sarcopenia group and 31.5% in the sarcopenia group; these differences were not significant. The prognosis of the patients with sarcopenia was worse than that of the patients without sarcopenia in the surgery-alone group, but there was no difference between patients with and without sarcopenia in the NACRT group.

CONCLUSIONS

NACRT could be a useful option for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, even for those with sarcopenia, without increasing the incidence of morbidity and mortality.

Esophagectomy from then to now

We have come a long way from the onset of surgery for esophageal cancer. Surgical resection is pivotal for the long-term survival in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. Moreover, advancements in post-operative care and surgical techniques have contributed to reductions in morbidity. More recently minimally invasive esophagectomy has been increasingly used in patients undergoing esophageal cancer resection. Potential advantages of MIE include: the decreased pulmonary complications, lower post-operative wound infection, decreased post-operative pain, and decreased length of hospitalization. The application of robotics to esophageal surgery is becoming more widespread. Robotic esophageal surgery has potential advantages over the known limitations of laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approaches to esophagectomy while adhering to the benefits of the minimally invasive approach. This paper is a review of the evolution from open esophagectomy to the most recent robotic approach.

The comparison of thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy and open esophagectomy: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy (TLE) and open esophagectomy (OE) in the treatment of esophageal cancer.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases for relevant keywords and the medical subject headings. After we had screened further, 13 clinical trials were included in the final meta-analysis. Specific odds ratios (ORs), standardized mean differences (SMDs), mean differences (MDs), and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

The outcomes of treatment effects included anastomotic leakage, blood loss, number of lymph nodes harvested, and operating time. Comparing OE for esophageal cancer patients, the pooled OR of anastomotic leakage was 0.89 (95% CI = [0.47, 1.68]), the pooled SMD of blood loss was - 0.56 (95% CI = [-0.77, -0.35]), the pooled MD of lymph nodes harvested was - 0.93 (95% CI = [-2.35, 0.50]), and the pooled SMD of operating time was 0.31 (95% CI = [0.02, 0.59]).

CONCLUSION

TLE was found to significantly decrease patients' blood loss. There is no difference of anastomotic leakage and the number of lymph nodes harvested between TLE and OE.

Safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy

Esophagectomy is associated with substantial morbidity. Robotic surgery allows complex resections to be performed with potential benefits over conventional techniques. We applied this technology to transthoracic esophagectomy to assess safety, feasibility, and reliability of this technology. A retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing robotic-assisted Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (RAIL) from 2009 to 2014 was conducted. Clinicopathologic factors and surgical outcomes were recorded and compared. All statistical tests were two-sided and a P-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. We identified 147 patients with an average age 66 ± 10 years. Neoadjuvant therapy was administered to 114 (77.6%) patients, and all patients underwent a R0 resection. The mean operating room (OR) time was 415 ± 84.6 minutes with a median estimated blood loss (EBL) of 150 (25-600) mL. Mean intensive care unit (ICU) stay was 2.00 ± 4.5 days, median length of hospitalization (LOH) was 9 (4-38) days, and readmissions within 90 days were low at 8 (5.5%). OR time decreased from 471 minutes to 389 minutes after 20 cases and a further decrease to mean of 346 minutes was observed after 120 cases. Complications occurred in 37 patients (25.2%). There were 4 anastomotic (2.7%) leaks. Thirty and 90-day mortality was 0.68% and 1.4%, respectively. This represents to our knowledge the largest series of robotic esophagectomies. RAIL is a safe surgical technique that provides an alternative to standard minimally invasive and open techniques. In our series, there was no increased risk of LOH, complications, or death and re-admission rates were low despite earlier discharge.

A structured training program for minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer- a Delphi consensus study in Europe

Evidence suggests that structured training programs for laparoscopic procedures can ensure a safe standard of skill acquisition prior to independent practice. Although minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIO) is technically demanding, no consensus on requirements for training for the MIO procedure exists. The aim of this study is to determine essential steps required for a structured training program in MIO using the Delphi consensus methodology. Eighteen MIO experts from 13 European hospitals were asked to participate in this study. The consensus process consisted of two structured meetings with the expert panel, and two Delphi questionnaire rounds. A list of items required for training MIO were constructed for three key domains of MIO, including (1) requisite criteria for units wishing to be trained and (2) to proctor MIO, and (3) a framework of a MIO training program. Items were rated by the experts on a scale 1-5, where 1 signified 'not important' and 5 represented 'very important.' Consensus for each domain was defined as achieving Cronbach alpha ≥0.70. Items were considered as fundamental when ≥75% of experts rated it important (4) or very important (5). Both Delphi rounds were completed by 16 (89%) of the 18 invited experts, with a median experience of 18 years with minimally invasive surgery. Consensus was achieved for all three key domains. Following two rounds of a 107-item questionnaire, 50 items were rated as essential for training MIO. A consensus among European MIO experts on essential items required for training MIO is presented. The identified items can serve as directive principles and core standards for creating a comprehensive training program for MIO.

Multidisciplinary Approach to the Management of Esophageal Malignancies

INTRODUCTION

A multidisciplinary approach in the management of complex malignancies is becoming more common, and likewise, adopting such an approach to the care of patients with locally advanced esophageal is recommended in order to optimize clinical outcomes.

METHODS

In this review, we discuss both the surgical and medical oncology perspectives in the management of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. We review the data supporting the current standard-of-care approach, namely trimodality therapy with neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy followed by surgery. Other aspects of managing these patients including the control of dysphagia and pain as well as nutritional support are discussed. Finally, we review data that support the importance of incorporating a multidisciplinary streamlined approach in the management of these patients.

RESULTS

Rather than having patients see each provider separately, a multidisciplinary approach to esophageal cancer allows for the seamless flow of communication and proactive management of the patient's symptoms. These benefits include increasing the likelihood of evidence-based decision making, shorter time to treatment, and increased patient quality of life, all of which can result in improved patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The use of a multidisciplinary team can lead to a more accurate staging paradigm and thereby, better management decisions that translate to improved clinical outcomes. Therefore, optimizing the multidisciplinary approach for the care of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer is essential for successful and individualized patient care.

Expedite recovery from esophagectomy and reconstruction for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after perioperative management protocol reinvention

BACKGROUND

Surgery for esophageal cancer is invasive and challenging, and always to be followed with arduous post-operative care and recovery. This study, maybe one of the first in Asian populations, is to determine whether a reinvented protocol for perioperative management for esophageal cancer surgery which is being implemented in our department, will lead to a faster convalescence and also significantly decrease financial burdens garnered by patients during hospitalization.

METHODS

Operated on by the same surgeon and team in the same hospital, consecutive patients who had received esophagectomy and reconstruction for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were retrospectively reviewed. On the basis of two different treatment periods, patients were divided into two groups: A and B. Group A was patients who had received the new reinvented protocol between 2012 and 2016, while group B patients were those having received the previous protocol between 2008 and 2011. Their demographics, post-operative outcome, and hospital charges were collected and compared.

RESULTS

There were 64 patients in group A, and 69 in group B. Ventilator days (P<0.001), ICU stay (P<0.001), and post-operative stay (P<0.001) were significantly shorter in group A patients. Complication rates were similar between the two groups. No hospital mortality was noted in either group. Hospital charges in group A were found to be perceptively lower, although not statistically significant (P value =0.078).

CONCLUSIONS

The current protocol of perioperative care effectively ameliorated convalescence after esophagectomy and reconstruction for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma without increasing complication rate or mortality. It is also potentially more practical in future health care policies during this era of financial shortage.

Prognostic Significance of Postoperative Complications After Curative Resection for Patients With Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to elucidate the impact of postoperative complications on long-term survival after curative resection for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND

The relation between postoperative complications and long-term survival after curative surgery for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is controversial; thus, this issue should be resolved with a large-scale, well-designed study.

METHODS

Clinicopathological features and survival of 580 consecutive patients who received curative resection for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were investigated according to the development of postoperative pulmonary complications and anastomotic leakage.

RESULTS

The 5-year survival rates of patients with pStage 0, I, and II disease with postoperative complications (n = 116) were significantly poorer than those of patients without postoperative complications (n = 288) (overall 69.6% vs 46.9%, P < 0.0001; disease-specific; 76.7% vs 58.9%, P < 0.0022), whereas no differences were found in patients with pStage III and IV disease (n = 176). In the univariate and multivariate analyses for disease-specific survival, pT3, pT4, pN positivity, and development of postoperative complications were significant prognostic factors in all patients. Also, when the analysis was limited to the pStage 0, I, and II patients, development of postoperative complications, and pT3, pT4, and pN positivity, were found to be independent poor prognostic factors in multivariate analyses (hazard ratio: 1.56, 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.41, P = 0.0476).

CONCLUSIONS

The development of postoperative complications is an independent disease-specific poor prognostic factor after curative resection for patients with less-advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Non-inferiority of minimally invasive oesophagectomy: an 8-year retrospective case series

BACKGROUND

The trend towards laparoscopic surgery seen in other specialties has not occurred at the same pace in oesophagectomy. This stems from concerns regarding compromised oncological clearance, and complications associated with gastric tube necrosis and anastomotic failure. We present our experience of minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) compared to open and hybrid surgery. We aim to ascertain non-inferiority of MIO by evaluating impact on survival, oncological clearance by resection margin and lymph node harvest and post-operative complications.

METHODS

Data were sourced retrospectively 2008-2015. Three approaches were studied. MIO (3-stage Mckeown), hybrid (2-stage Ivor Lewis, laparoscopy, thoracotomy) and open (2-stage Ivor Lewis).

RESULTS

Five-year survival was 54.2%. Surgical approach had no significant impact on survival at any stage of disease (Stage 0/I p = 0.98; stage II p = 0.2; stage III p = 0.76). There was no statistically significant difference in oncological clearance by resection margins between procedures when compared by disease stage (p = 0.49). A higher number of nodes were harvested in hybrid [median 27.5 (6-65)] and open surgeries [median 26 (4-54)] than in MIO [median 20 (7-44)] (p > 0.01). Numbers of nodes resected did not impact risk of recurrence [recurrence, median 25 (6-54), no recurrence, 26 (4-65)] (p = 0.25). Anastomotic strictures (22.4%) and potential leaks (17.9%) were more common in MIO (strictures p > 0.01, leaks p = 0.08), although associated morbidity was lower. Respiratory complications were less common in MIO (2.9%) versus hybrid (13.3%) (p = 0.02). Wound infection and chyle leak were also lower (wound 1.5% MIO 3.5% open, p = 0.6; chyle leak 1.5% MIO, 6.7% hybrid, p = 0.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show no negative impact of MIO on survival or oncological clearance. Respiratory and wound complications are lower in MIO, but rates of anastomotic strictures and potential anastomotic leaks are increased. This may be due to the longer length of conduit and subclinical ischaemia at the anastomosis and merits further evaluation.

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

Background

Open esophagectomy (OE) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) reduces complications in resectable esophageal cancer. The aim of this study is to explore the superiority of MIO in reducing complications and in-hospital mortality than OE.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Wanfang, and Wiley Online Library were thoroughly searched. Odds ratio (OR)/weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess the strength of association.

Results

Fifty-seven studies containing 15,790 cases of resectable esophageal cancer were included. MIO had less intraoperative blood loss, short hospital stay, and high operative time (P < 0.05) than OE. MIO also had reduced incidence of total complications; (OR = 0.700, 95% CI = 0.626 ~ 0.781, P_V < 0.05), pulmonary complications (OR = 0.527, 95% CI = 0431 ~ 0.645, P_V < 0.05), cardiovascular complications (OR = 0.770, 95% CI = 0.681 ~ 0.872, P_V < 0.05), and surgical technology related (STR) complications (OR = 0.639, 95% CI = 0.522 ~ 0.781, P_V < 0.05), as well as lower in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.668, 95% CI = 0.539 ~ 0.827, P_V < 0.05). However, the number of harvested lymph nodes, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, gastrointestinal complications, anastomotic leak (AL), and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (RLNP) had no significant difference.

Conclusions

MIO is superior to OE in terms of perioperative complications and in-hospital mortality.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

Background and objectives

The safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in comparison with the open esophagectomy (OE) remain uncertain in esophageal cancer treatment. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes of the two surgical modalities.

Methods

Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov with the following index words: “esophageal cancer”, “VATS”, “MIE”, “thoracoscopic esophagectomy”, and “open esophagectomy” for relative studies that compared the effects between MIE and OE. Random-effect models were used, and heterogeneity was assessed.

Results

A total of 20 studies were included in the analysis, consisting of four randomized controlled trials and 16 prospective studies. MIE has reduced operative blood loss (P=0.0009) but increased operation time (P=0.009) in comparison with OE. Patients get less respiratory complications (risk ratio =0.74, 95% CI =0.58–0.94, P=0.01) and better overall survival (hazard ratio =0.54, 95% CI =0.42–0.70, P<0.00001) in the MIE group than the OE group. No statistical difference was observed between the two groups in terms of lymph node harvest, R0 resection, and other major complications.

Conclusion

MIE is a better choice for esophageal cancer because patients undergoing MIE may benefit from reduced blood loss, less respiratory complications, and also improved overall survival condition compared with OE. However, more randomized controlled trials are still needed to verify these differences.

Hybrid Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

The last 25 years have witnessed a steady increase in the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy for the treatment of esophageal cancer. However, it is unclear which the optimal minimally invasive approach is: totally minimally invasive or hybrid (laparoscopic assisted or thoracoscopic assisted)? The current evidence from nonrandomized control trials suggests that hybrid laparoscopic-assisted esophagectomy couples the benefits of laparoscopy and the advantages of thoracotomy, leading to reduced surgical trauma without jeopardizing survival compared with open esophagectomy. Compromised blood supply and tension on the anastomosis are two of the main factors that lead to anastomotic leakage. Recent studies have shown that a side-to-side mechanical intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis is associated with low anastomotic complications. This article discusses surgical aspects and outcomes of hybrid laparoscopic-assisted esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Early Experience of Robot-Assisted Esophagectomy With Circular End-to-End Stapled Anastomosis

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is a critical element in the treatment of esophageal cancer. Esophagectomy is technically challenging and is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Efforts to reduce these rates have spurred the adoption of minimally invasive techniques. This study describes a single-institution experience of robot-assisted esophagectomy with circular end-to-end stapled anastomosis.

METHODS

Between December 2013 and April 2015, a series of consecutive patients underwent robot-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with circular end-to-end anastomosis (RAILE-EEA) at a tertiary care center with curative intent. We retrospectively reviewed their electronic medical records using real-time prospectively collected data. The operative and postoperative outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS

Twenty patients underwent RAILE-EEA during the study period. The abdominal mobilization was performed laparoscopically, and the thoracic portion was robotic. The median total operative time was 455 minutes (range, 318-765 minutes), the 90-day operative mortality was 0%, and morbidity was present in 11 of 20 patients (55%). Atrial fibrillation was the most common event and was observed in 3 patients (15%). There were no anastomotic leaks. The median estimated blood loss was 275 mL, and the conversion rate was 0%. Complete (R0) resection was achieved in all cases. The mean number of lymph nodes was 23.2 (± 2.26). The median follow-up time was 330 days (range, 108-600 days), and the overall 1-year survival was 84%.

CONCLUSIONS

RAILE-EEA in our institution suggests a safe, effective, and reproducible alternative with satisfactory postoperative outcomes for the treatment of esophageal cancer. It provided good local control, adequate lymphadenectomy, low morbidity, and low 90-day operative mortality.

Laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the preferred treatment for resectable oesophageal cancers, and can be performed in different ways. Transhiatal oesophagectomy (oesophagectomy without thoracotomy, with a cervical anastomosis) is one way to resect oesophageal cancers. It can be performed laparoscopically or by open method. With other organs, laparoscopic surgery has been shown to reduce complications and length of hospital stay compared to open surgery. However, concerns remain about the safety of laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy in terms of post-operative complications and oncological clearance compared with open transhiatal oesophagectomy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic versus open oesophagectomy for people with oesophageal cancer undergoing transhiatal oesophagectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We electronically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers until August 2015. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies comparing laparoscopic with open transhiatal oesophagectomy in patients with resectable oesophageal cancer, regardless of language, blinding, or publication status for the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently identified trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), using both fixed-effect and random-effects models, with RevMan 5, based on intention-to-treat analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no randomised controlled trials on this topic. We included six non-randomised studies (five retrospective) that compared laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy (334 patients: laparoscopic = 154 patients; open = 180 patients); five studies (326 patients: laparoscopic = 151 patients; open = 175 patients) provided information for one or more outcomes. Most studies included a mixture of adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma and different stages of oesophageal cancer, without metastases. All the studies were at unclear or high risk of bias; the overall quality of evidence was very low for all the outcomes.The differences between laparoscopic and open transhiatal oesophagectomy were imprecise for short-term mortality (laparoscopic = 0/151 (adjusted proportion based on meta-analysis estimate: 0.5%) versus open = 2/175 (1.1%); RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.05 to 4.09; participants = 326; studies = 5; I² = 0%); long-term mortality (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; participants = 193; studies = 2; I² = 0%); anastomotic stenosis (laparoscopic = 4/36 (11.1%) versus open = 3/37 (8.1%); RR 1.37; 95% CI 0.33 to 5.70; participants = 73; studies = 1); short-term recurrence (laparoscopic = 1/16 (6.3%) versus open = 0/4 (0%); RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.04 to 18.47; participants = 20; studies = 1); long-term recurrence (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18; participants = 173; studies = 2); proportion of people who required blood transfusion (laparoscopic = 0/36 (0%) versus open = 6/37 (16.2%); RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.00 to 1.35; participants = 73; studies = 1); proportion of people with positive resection margins (laparoscopic = 15/102 (15.8%) versus open = 27/111 (24.3%); RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.12; participants = 213; studies = 3; I² = 0%); and the number of lymph nodes harvested during surgery (median difference between the groups varied from 12 less to 3 more lymph nodes in the laparoscopic compared to the open group; participants = 326; studies = 5).The proportion of patients with serious adverse events was lower in the laparoscopic group (10/99, (10.3%) compared to the open group = 24/114 (21.1%); RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.99; participants = 213; studies = 3; I² = 0%); as it was for adverse events in the laparoscopic group = 37/99 (39.9%) versus the open group = 71/114 (62.3%); RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.86; participants = 213; studies = 3; I² = 0%); and the median lengths of hospital stay were significantly less in the laparoscopic group than the open group (three days less in all three studies that reported this outcome; number of participants = 266). There was lack of clarity as to whether the median difference in the quantity of blood transfused was statistically significant favouring laparoscopic oesophagectomy in the only study that reported this information. None of the studies reported post-operative dysphagia, health-related quality of life, time-to-return to normal activity (return to pre-operative mobility without caregiver support), or time-to-return to work.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are currently no randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic with open transhiatal oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancers. In observational studies, laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy is associated with fewer overall complications and shorter hospital stays than open transhiatal oesophagectomy. However, this association is unlikely to be causal. There is currently no information to determine a causal association in the differences between the two surgical approaches. Randomised controlled trials comparing laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy with other methods of oesophagectomy are required to determine the optimal method of oesophagectomy.

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.

Laparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review

AIM: To review current applications of the laparoscopic surgery while highlighting the standard procedures across different fields.

METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken using the PubMed Advanced Search Builder. A total of 321 articles were found in this search. The following criteria had to be met for the publication to be selected: Review article, randomized controlled trials, or meta-analyses discussing the subject of laparoscopic surgery. In addition, publications were hand-searched in the Cochrane database and the high-impact journals. A total of 82 of the findings were included according to matching the inclusion criteria. Overall, 403 full-text articles were reviewed. Of these, 218 were excluded due to not matching the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS: A total of 185 relevant articles were identified matching the search criteria for an overview of the current literature on the laparoscopic surgery. Articles covered the period from the first laparoscopic application through its tremendous advancement over the last several years. Overall, the biggest advantage of the procedure has been minimizing trauma to the abdominal wall compared with open surgery. In the case of cholecystectomy, fundoplication, and adrenalectomy, the procedure has become the gold standard without being proven as a superior technique over the open surgery in randomized controlled trials. Faster recovery, reduced hospital stay, and a quicker return to normal activities are the most evident advantages of the laparoscopic surgery. Positive outcomes, efficiency, a lower rate of wound infections, and reduction in the perioperative morbidity of minimally invasive procedures have been shown in most indications.

CONCLUSION: Improvements in surgical training and developments in instruments, imaging, and surgical techniques have greatly increased safety and feasibility of the laparoscopic surgical procedures.

Combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: a meta-analysis of outcomes

OBJECTIVES

At present there is controversy regarding the optimal surgical method for esophageal cancer. Specifically, whether combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy is superior to open esophagectomy with respect to the surgical wound, perioperative morbidities and mortality, and the overall survival rate is of great concern. This article aimed to compare thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy on the perioperative morbidities and long-term survival.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases were searched for relevant studies comparing combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy with open esophagectomy using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards. Odds ratios were extracted to give pooled estimates of the perioperative effect of the two surgical procedures. Hazard ratios were extracted to compare overall survival between the two surgical procedures.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies involving 1549 patients were included in this meta-analysis. We found that patients that underwent combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy had lower total complication rates (relative risk 1.20; 95 % CI 1.08-1.34; p = 0.0009), wound infection rates, pulmonary complications, and less intraoperative blood loss. Moreover, our study also showed combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy did not compromise the 5-year survival rate (hazard risk 0.920; 95 % CI 0.720-1.176; p = 0.505) and even improved 2-year survival rate. The 30-day mortality and other common morbidities, including anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stricture, pulmonary infection, chylothorax, arrhythmia, or recurrent laryngeal nerve injury, were not significantly different between combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy and traditional open esophagectomy (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy is a feasible and reliable surgical procedure that can achieve uncompromising long-term survival rates and reduce perioperative complications.

Postoperative sepsis in cancer patients undergoing major elective digestive surgery is associated with increased long-term mortality

BACKGROUND

Major postoperative events (acute respiratory failure, sepsis, and surgical complications) are frequent early after elective gastroesophageal and pancreatic surgery. It is unclear whether these complications impact equally on long-term outcome.

METHODS

Prospective observational study including the patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit between January 2009 and October 2011 after elective gastroesophageal and pancreatic surgery. Risk factors for 30-day major postoperative events and long-term outcome were evaluated.

RESULTS

During the study period, 259 patients were consecutively included. Among them, 166 (64%), 54 (21%), and 39 (15%) patients underwent pancreatic surgery, gastric surgery, and esophageal surgery, respectively. Using the Clavien-Dindo classification, 117 patients (45%) developed at least 1 postoperative complication, including 60 (23%) patients with acute respiratory failure, 77 (30%) with sepsis, and 89 (34%) with surgical complications. The median follow-up from the time of intensive care unit admission was 34 months (95% confidence interval, 30-37 months). The 1-year survival was 95% (95% confidence interval, 92-98). Among the perioperative variables, postoperative sepsis and an American Society of Anesthesiologists score higher than 2 were independently associated with long-term mortality. In septic patients, death (n = 16) was significantly associated with cancer recurrence (n = 10; P < .0001). Independent factors associated with postoperative sepsis were a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score on day 1, a systemic inflammatory response syndrome on day 3, positive intraoperative microbiological samples, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II and an American Society of Anesthesiologists score higher than 2 (P < .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative sepsis was the only major postoperative event associated with long-term mortality. Postoperative sepsis may reflect a deep impairment of immune response, which is potentially associated with cancer recurrence and mortality.

Minimally Invasive Techniques and Hybrid Operations for Esophageal Cancer

Background

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is slowly gaining acceptance due to advantages in short-term outcome. While evidence is slowly increasing, the discussion about MIE is still controversial.

Methods

A literature review was performed to compare MIE with open esophagectomy (OE). Current studies are summarized in view of short- and long-term outcome as well as oncological accuracy.

Results

The majority of studies show that MIE is associated with a significant reduction of pulmonary complications, blood loss, and shorter length of stay on the intensive care unit. Pulmonary complications are reduced by 14-65%. MIE shows an improved quality of life 6 weeks after surgery. There is some evidence that the endoscopic reintervention rate may be higher after MIE than after OE. Mortality rates do not differ. Regarding oncological results, the rate of R0 resections is comparable between MIE and OE, as is the number of retrieved lymph nodes. Long-term survival seems to be comparable. A few single center trials suggest oncological advantages of MIE over OE concerning the number of lymph nodes, R0 resection rate, and 1-year survival.

Conclusion

Current evidence supports that MIE has advantages over OE in the short-term outcome. Oncological results are comparable to those achieved by OE. As a result, MIE has already been included in current guidelines for the treatment of esophageal cancer.

Early outcome of thoracoscopic and hybrid esophagectomy: Propensity-matched comparative analysis

BACKGROUND

Transthoracic esophagectomy remains the current therapeutic standard for localized esophageal carcinoma. Minimally invasive surgery has proven at least equivalent to open surgery regarding the early outcomes, but only 1 randomized study has compared the thoracoscopic with the thoracotomy approach. The primary objective of this study was to assess the early outcome of the thoracoscopic prone esophagectomy (TPE) and the hybrid Ivor Lewis (HIL) esophagectomy in 2 concurrent patient cohorts.

METHODS

We compared the 1-year outcome of 3-stage TPE and 2-stage HIL done over the same time period in a single center. The propensity score matching method was used to reduce selection bias by creating 2 groups of patients similarly likely to receive a treatment on the basis of measured baseline characteristics. After generating propensity scores using the covariates of age, sex, body mass index, forced expiration volume at 1 second, Charlson comorbidity index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histologic tumor type, tumor site, pTNM stage, and neoadjuvant therapy, 93 TPE patients were matched with 197 HIL patients using a 1:1 ratio and the nearest-neighbor score matching. Main outcome measure was the incidence of postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Operative time was longer in TPE patients (P < .01). All postoperative outcomes, including morbidity, mortality, nodal harvest, R0 resection rate, and 1-year survival rates were similar in the 2 matched groups.

CONCLUSION

Both operative approaches are safe and effective; using 1 or the other depends on the tumor site, surgeon experience and preference, and patient expectations.

Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Compared with open esophagectomy (OE), minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) proves to have clear benefits in reducing the risk of pulmonary complications for patients with resectable esophageal cancer. The objectives of our study were to explore the superiority of MIE in reducing the occurrence of anastomotic leakages (ALs) when compared to OE.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the superiority of MIE on the occurrence of ALs over OE, by searching many sources (through December, 2014) such as Medline, Embase, Wiley Online Library, and Cochrane Library. Fixed-effects model was used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) to quantify associations between OE and MIE groups. Cochran’s Q and I² statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity among studies.

Results

Among a total of 43 studies involving 5537 patients included in the meta-analysis, 2527 (45.6 %) cases underwent MIE and 3010 (54.4 %) cases underwent OE. Compared to patients undergoing OE, patients undergoing MIE did not have statistical significance in reduced occurrence of ALs (OR = 0.97, 95 % CI = 0.80–1.17). Insignificant reduced occurrence of ALs was not associated with anastomotic location (OR = 0.90, 95 % CI = 0.71–1.13) or anastomotic procedure (OR = 1.02, 95 % CI = 0.79–1.30).

Conclusions

More proofs are needed to clarify the strengths or weaknesses of MIE in preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer. A largely randomized, controlled trial should be undertaken to resolve this contentious issue urgently.

Superiority of Minimally Invasive Oesophagectomy in Reducing In-Hospital Mortality of Patients with Resectable Oesophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Compared with open oesophagectomy (OE), minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) proves to have benefits in reducing the risk of pulmonary complications for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. However, it is unknown whether MIO has superiority in reducing the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM).

Objective

The objective of this meta-analysis was to explore the effect of MIO vs. OE on the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM).

Data Sources

Sources such as Medline (through December 31, 2014), Embase (through December 31, 2014), Wiley Online Library (through December 31, 2014), and the Cochrane Library (through December 31, 2014) were searched.

Study Selection

Data of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials related to MIO versus OE were included.

Interventions

Eligible studies were those that reported patients who underwent MIO procedure. The control group included patients undergoing conventional OE.

Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods

Fixed or random -effects models were used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) or relative risks (RRs) for quantification of associations. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated by using Cochran’s Q and I² statistics.

Results

A total of 48 studies involving 14,311 cases of resectable oesophageal cancer were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to patients undergoing OE, patients undergoing MIO had statistically reduced occurrence of IHM (OR=0.69, 95%CI =0.55 -0.86). Patients undergoing MIO also had significantly reduced incidence of pulmonary complications (PCs) (RR=0.73, 95%CI = 0.63-0.86), pulmonary embolism (PE) (OR=0.71, 95%CI= 0.51-0.99) and arrhythmia (OR=0.79, 95%CI = 0.68-0.92). Non-significant reductions were observed among the included studies in the occurrence of anastomotic leak (AL) (OR=0.93, 95%CI =0.78-1.11), or Gastric Tip Necrosis (GTN) (OR=0.89, 95%CI =0.54-1.49).

Limitation

Most of the included studies were non-randomized case-control studies, with a diversity of study designs, demographics of participants and surgical intervention.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) has superiority over open oesophagectomy (OE) in terms of the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM) and should be the first-choice surgical procedure in esophageal surgery.