Laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy: outcomes

Minimally Invasive Transhiatal Esophagectomy Using Antegrade Inversion Technique in Esophageal Cancer: 10-Year Experience from a Tertiary Care Center

Background: Esophageal cancer surgery aims for curative intent but carries high complication rates. Transthoracic esophagectomy is the dominant approach, however, transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) offers selective advantages in certain clinical scenarios. Minimally invasive THE (MI-THE) is an evolving technique with limited data. Methods: This retrospective study reviewed 38 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent MI-THE using "Antegrade Inversion Technique" between 2013 and 2023 at a tertiary care center. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Data were presented as mean with standard deviation, median with interquartile range, and percentages. Results: Most patients (86.8%) had early-stage cancer. Median operative time was 375 minutes, hospital stay was 8 days, and intensive care unit stay was 3 days. All patients achieved a negative resection margin. Pleural effusion (57.9%) was the most common complication, followed by pneumothorax (31.6%) and surgical site infection (15.8%). Anastomotic leak rate was 13.2%. There was no mortality. Conclusions: MI-THE appears safe and feasible with encouraging perioperative outcomes, particularly for early-stage disease and high-risk patients. While potentially offering advantages over open THE, further research is needed to definitively establish its role compared to traditional approaches.

Current status of laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy for esophageal cancer patients: a systematic review of the literature

Minimally invasive techniques in transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) were introduced to reduce morbidity and enhance postoperative recovery. Aim of this study was to systematically review the current status and possible beneficial effects of the minimally invasive approach in THE. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify English articles published on laparoscopic THE. Comparative cohort studies were included for critical appraisal. Data describing perioperative and oncological outcomes were analyzed. A total of four comparative cohort studies that compared laparoscopic THE (n = 122) with open THE (n = 144) and four noncomparative cohort studies reporting on laparoscopic THE (n = 212) were included in this review. Median blood loss was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group in all studies (100-500 vs. 526-900 mL). Length of hospital stay was also significantly shorter for the laparoscopic approach in all studies (9-13 vs. 12-16 days). One study reported less major postoperative complications after laparoscopic THE (12 vs. 23%), in the other studies no differences were found. Also no differences were found with regard to operating time, postoperative morbidity, radicality, and lymph node retrieval. Based on these pioneer studies, laparoscopic THE was demonstrated to be safe and feasible with evidence of reduced blood loss and shorter hospital stays. However, level 1 evidence is lacking and further research is warranted to confirm these findings and also to evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes.

The use of a tailored surgical technique for minimally invasive esophagectomy

OBJECTIVE

Uncertainty exists among surgeons as to whether minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is a comparable operation to open esophagectomy (OE). The surgical technique and oncologic dissection should not be degraded when using a minimally invasive approach.

METHODS

We reviewed a single hospital's experience with both OE and MIE. From 2000 to 2010, 257 patients underwent esophagectomy by 1 of 3 surgical techniques: transhiatal, Ivor Lewis, or 3-hole.

RESULTS

Of the 257 patients (median age, 67 years; range, 58-74), 92 underwent MIE. Both groups were comparable in terms of gender, age, comorbidities, surgical technique, and induction chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The overall median follow-up was 29.5 months (range, 9.9-61.5). The MIE group had a significantly shorter operative time (MIE vs OE, 330 vs 365 minutes, P = .04), length of stay (MIE vs OE, 9 vs 12 days, P < .01), intensive care unit admission rate (MIE vs OE, 55% vs 81%, P < .01), intensive care unit length of stay (MIE vs OE, 1 vs 2 days, P < .01), and estimated blood loss (MIE vs OE, 100 vs 400 mL, P < .01). More lymph nodes were harvested in the MIE group than in the OE group (17 vs 11 nodes, P < .01). There were insignificant differences in 30-day mortality (MIE vs OE, 2.2% vs 3.0%; P = .93) and overall survival (P = .19), as well as in the rates of all complications, except pneumonia (MIE vs OE, 2% vs 13%; P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

A thoracic surgeon can safely tailor the MIE to a patient's anatomy and oncologic demands while maintaining equivalent survival.

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy: current status and future direction

BACKGROUND

Oesophagectomy is one of the most challenging surgeries. Potential for morbidity and mortality is high. Minimally invasive techniques have been introduced in an attempt to reduce postoperative complications and recovery times. Debate continues over whether these techniques are beneficial to morbidity and whether oncological resection is compromised. This review article will analyse the different techniques employed in minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) and critically evaluate commonly reported outcome measures from the available literature.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and PubMed databases were used to search English language articles published on MIO. Thirty-one articles underwent thorough analysis and the data were tabulated where appropriate. To date, only level III evidence exists. Where appropriate, comparisons are made with a meta-analysis on open oesophagectomy.

RESULTS

Positive aspects of MIO include at least comparable postoperative recovery data and oncological resection measures to open surgery. Intensive care unit requirements are lower, as is duration of inpatient stay. Respiratory morbidity varies. Negative aspects include increased technical skill of the surgeon and increased equipment requirements, increased operative time and limitation with respect to local advancement of cancer. With increasing individual experience, improvements in outcome measures and the amenability of this approach to increasing neoplastic advancement has been shown.

CONCLUSION

MIO has outcome measures at least as comparable to open oesophagectomy in the setting of benign and nonlocally advanced cancer. Transthoracic oesophagectomy provides superior exposure to the thoracic oesophagus compared to the transhiatal approach and is currently preferred. No multicentre randomised controlled trials exist or are likely to come into fruition. As with all surgery, careful patient selection is required for optimal results from MIO.

Systematic review of minimally invasive resection for gastro-oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

This article reviews the evidence on the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery for gastric and oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

An electronic search of the literature between 1997 and 2007 was undertaken to identify primary studies and systematic reviews; studies were retrieved and analysed using predetermined criteria. Information on the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery for gastric and oesophageal cancer was recorded and analysed.

RESULTS

From 188 abstracts reviewed, 46 eligible studies were identified, 23 on oesophagectomy and 23 on gastrectomy. There were 35 case series, eight case-matched studies and three randomized controlled trials. Compared with the contemporary results of open surgery, reports on minimally invasive surgery indicate potentially favourable outcomes in terms of operative blood loss, recovery of gastrointestinal function and hospital stay. However, the quality of the data was generally poor, with many potential sources of bias.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgery is feasible but evidence of benefit is currently weak.