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

Approaches for thoracoabdominal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: a network meta-analysis - study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Oesophageal cancer is the seventh most frequently diagnosed cancer and the sixth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Oesophagectomy remains the main curative treatment option. The effect of different surgical approaches (completely open, hybrid, completely minimally invasive and robot-assisted) on patients undergoing thoracoabdominal oesophagectomy (Ivor-Lewis's procedure) for oesophageal cancer is evaluated, focusing on overall survival, postoperative mortality and morbidity.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic literature search will be conducted in PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, Cumulated Index in Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform using predefined search terms. A random-effects (network) meta-analysis using the frequentist framework will be performed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

As this study is based on previously published data, no ethical approval is required. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations to inform clinical decision-makers (eg, surgeons, gastroenterologists).

TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42024564915.

What is the best surgical approach for esophageal cancer?

Esophageal cancer is an aggressive tumor entity, and oncologic esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy after perioperative chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care for curative treatment. Oncological esophagectomy is a complex procedure associated with a relevant surgical trauma. Complications, such as severe pulmonary infections and anastomotic leakage with mediastinitis lead to a high morbidity rate. To reduce the surgical trauma, the minimally invasive technique was introduced in esophageal surgery. Minimally invasive esophagectomy is associated with less postoperative pain and a reduced rate of pulmonary infections. Currently, there are two major different totally minimally invasive techniques, the conventional laparoscopic/thoracoscopic approach (MIE) and the robotic assisted approach (RAMIE). Both methods require teaching due to the flat learning curve associated with these complex procedures. However, both MIE and RAMIE are performed safely in specialized centers. They are associated with improved short-term outcome and similar oncological outcome compared to open esophagectomy. The robotic assisted approach has additional benefits that may be supported by the results of more randomized controlled trials in the future.

How pragmatic are randomised controlled trials evaluating minimally invasive surgery for oesophageal cancer? A methodological review of trial design using the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) tool

BACKGROUND

Surgical interventions are inherently complex and designing and conducting surgical randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be challenging. Trial design impacts the applicability of trial results to clinical practice. Given the recent growth in numbers of surgical RCTs, there is a need to better understand the validity and applicability of trials in this field.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the applicability and validity of RCTs comparing minimally invasive and open surgery for oesophageal cancer and to delineate areas for future research.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

RCTs comparing open with minimal invasive oesophagectomy, published January 2012-June 2023. Abstracts, pilot and feasibility studies, and systematic reviews were excluded.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

Three sequential searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL electronic databases and clinical trials registry databases.

CHARTING METHODS

Two independent reviewers screened the articles and used appropriate, validated tools (Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) and Risk of Bias 2) to assess study quality. Trials were considered pragmatic if they were conducted in multiple centres and had a mean score of four or above on the PRECIS-2.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs were identified. One was judged to be pragmatic. The remaining eight were limited by narrow eligibility criteria, being single-centred or having strict intervention protocols. Two studies were low risk of bias, of which one was pragmatic, and three high, due to unblinded outcome assessment. The remaining four studies were of 'some concern' due to poor reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Only one trial identified in this review was considered pragmatic. More lenient criteria, as used in other reviews, may increase the proportion. There is a need for clearer guidance on the cut-off values that define a trial as pragmatic. It is recommended that the intended purpose of the trial, whether explanatory or pragmatic, receives more attention during surgical trial study design and conduct.

2024 Update of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Short-term Esophagectomy Risk Model: More Inclusive and Improved Calibration

BACKGROUND

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database (STS-GTSD) previously reported short-term risk models for esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. We sought to update existing models using more inclusive contemporary cohorts, with consideration of additional risk factors based on clinical evidence.

METHODS

The study population consisted of adult patients in the STS-GTSD who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between January 2015 and December 2022. Separate esophagectomy risk models were derived for 3 primary end points: operative mortality, major morbidity, and composite morbidity or mortality. Logistic regression with backward selection was used, with predictors retained in models if P < .10. All derived models were validated using 9-fold cross-validation. Model discrimination and calibration were assessed for the overall cohort and specified subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 18,503 patients from 254 centers underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Operative mortality, morbidity, and composite morbidity or mortality rates were 3.4%, 30.5%, and 30.9%, respectively. Novel predictors of short-term outcomes in the updated models included body surface area and insurance payor type. Overall discrimination was similar or superior to previous STS-GTSD models for operative mortality (C statistic = 0.72) and for composite morbidity or mortality (C statistic = 0.62), Model discrimination was comparable across procedure- and demographic-specific subcohorts. Model calibration was excellent in all patient subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The newly derived esophagectomy risk models showed similar or superior performance compared with previous models, with broader applicability and clinical face validity. These models provide robust preoperative risk estimation and can be used for shared decision making, assessment of provider performance, and quality improvement.

Impact of operative time on textbook outcome after minimally invasive esophagectomy, a risk-adjusted analysis from a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

We aimed to study the impact of operative time on textbook outcome (TO), especially postoperative complications and length of postoperative stay in minimally invasive esophagectomy.

METHODS

Patients undergoing esophagectomy for curative intent within a prospectively maintained database from 2016 to 2022 were retrieved. Relationships between operative time and outcomes were quantified using multivariable mixed-effects models with medical teams random effects. A restricted cubic spline (RCS) plotting was used to characterize correlation between operative time and the odds for achieving TO.

RESULTS

Data of 2210 patients were examined. Median operative time was 270 mins (interquartile range, 233-313) for all cases. Overall, 902 patients (40.8%) achieved TO. Among non-TO patients, 226 patients (10.2%) had a major complication (grade ≥ III), 433 patients (19.6%) stayed postoperatively longer than 14 days. Multivariable analysis revealed operative time was associated with higher odds of major complications (odds ratio 1.005, P < 0.001) and prolonged postoperative stay (≥ 14 days) (odds ratio 1.003, P = 0.006). The relationship between operative time and TO exhibited an inverse-U shape, with 298 mins identified as the tipping point for the highest odds of achieving TO.

CONCLUSIONS

Longer operative time displayed an adverse influence on postoperative morbidity and increased lengths of postoperative stay. In the present study, the TO displayed an inverse U-shaped correlation with operative time, with a significant peak at 298 mins. Potential factors contributing to prolonged operative time may potentiate targets for quality metrics and risk-adjustment process.

Fashioning esophagogastric anastomosis in robotic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy: a multicenter experience

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study is to compare outcomes of the robotic hand-sewn, linear- and circular-stapled techniques performed to create an intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis in patients who underwent Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.

METHODS

Patients who underwent a planned Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy were retrospectively analysed from prospectively maintained databases. Only patients who underwent a robotic thoracic approach with the creation of an intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis were included in the study. Patients were divided into three groups: hand-sewn-, circular stapled-, and linear-stapled anastomosis group. Demographic information and surgery-related data were extracted. The primary outcome was the rate of anastomotic leakages (AL) in the three groups. Moreover, the rate of grade A, B and C anastomotic leakage were evaluated. In addition, patients of each group were divided in subgroups according to the characteristics of anastomotic fashioning technique.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty patients were enrolled in the study. No significant differences were found between the three groups about AL rate (p = 0.137). Considering the management of the AL for each of the three groups, no significant differences were found. Evaluating the correlation between AL rate and the characteristics of anastomotic fashioning technique, no significant differences were found.

CONCLUSIONS

No standardized anastomotic fashioning technique has yet been generally accepted. This study could be considered a call to perform ad hoc high-quality studies involving high-volume centers for upper gastrointestinal surgery to evaluate what is the most advantageous anastomotic technique.

Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18,187 patients

The role of robotic surgery in the curative-intent treatment of esophageal cancer patients is yet to be defined. To compare short-term outcomes between conventional minimally invasive (cMIE) and robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in esophageal cancer patients. PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were systematically searched. The included studies compared short-term outcomes between cMIE and RAMIE. Individual risk of bias was calculated using the MINORS and RoB2 scales. There were no statistically significant differences between RAMIE and cMIE regarding conversion to open procedure, mean number of harvested lymph nodes in the mediastinum, abdomen and along the right recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN), 30- and 90-day mortality rates, chyle leakage, RLN palsy as well as cardiac and infectious complication rates. Estimated blood loss (MD - 71.78 mL, p < 0.00001), total number of harvested lymph nodes (MD 2.18 nodes, p < 0.0001) and along the left RLN (MD 0.73 nodes, p = 0.03), pulmonary complications (RR 0.70, p = 0.001) and length of hospital stay (MD - 3.03 days, p < 0.0001) are outcomes that favored RAMIE. A significantly shorter operating time (MD 29.01 min, p = 0.004) and a lower rate of anastomotic leakage (RR 1.23, p = 0.0005) were seen in cMIE. RAMIE has indicated to be a safe and feasible alternative to cMIE, with a tendency towards superiority in blood loss, lymph node yield, pulmonary complications and length of hospital stay. There was significant heterogeneity among studies for some of the outcomes measured. Further studies are necessary to confirm these results and overcome current limitations.

Risk Factor Analysis for Developing Major Complications Following Esophageal Surgery-A Two-Center Study

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy carries a high risk of morbidity and mortality compared to other major surgeries. With the aim of creating an easy-to-use clinical preoperative risk assessment tool and to validate previously described risk factors for major complications following surgery, esophagectomies at two tertiary medical centers were analyzed.

METHODS

A total of 450 patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma at the University Medical Centre, Hamburg, or at the Medical Center University Duisburg-Essen, Germany (January 2008 to January 2020) were retrospectively analyzed. Epidemiological and perioperative data were analyzed to identify the risk factors that impact major complication rates. The primary endpoint of this study was to determine the incidence of major complications.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 63 years with a bimodal distribution. There was a male predominance across the cohort (81% vs. 19%, respectively). Alcohol abuse (p = 0.0341), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (p = 0.0264), and cardiac comorbidity (p = 0.0367) were associated with a significantly higher risk of major complications in the multivariate analysis. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly reduced the risk of major postoperative complications (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Various patient-related risk factors increased the rate of major complications following esophagectomy. Patient-tailored prehabilitation programs before esophagectomy that focus on minimizing these risk factors may lead to better surgical outcomes and should be analyzed in further studies.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American Society for Radiation Oncology Updated Clinical Practice Guidelines on Multimodality Therapy for Locally Advanced Cancer of the Esophagus or Gastroesophageal Junction

Outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer have improved over the last decade with the implementation of multimodality therapy. There are currently no comprehensive guidelines addressing multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer that have incorporated the input of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. To address the need for multidisciplinary input in the management of esophageal cancer and to meet current best practices for clinical practice guidelines, the current guidelines were created as a collaboration between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Physician representatives chose 8 key clinical questions pertinent to the care of patients with locally advanced, resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (excluding cervical location). A comprehensive literature review was performed identifying 227 articles that met the inclusion criteria covering the use of induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy before surgery, optimal radiation dose, the value of esophagectomy, timing of esophagectomy, the approach and extent of lymphadenectomy, the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and the value of adjuvant therapy after resection. The relevant data were reviewed and voted on by the panel with 80% of the authors, with 75% agreement on class and level of evidence. These data were then complied into the guidelines document.

Three-staged minimally invasive esophagectomy with end-to-end esophago-gastric anastomosis for thoracic esophageal cancers: An experience from a low middle-income country

BACKGROUND

Esophageal cancer is on a steady rise and carries significant mortality and morbidity. Depending upon the clinical stage at presentation, either chemotherapy, radiotherapy with or without surgical resection is the treatments in practice. Traditionally, open esophagectomy was performed but over time, the importance of minimally invasive esophagectomy has been established. In this study, we aimed to report our data of totally minimally invasive esophagectomies performed for thoracic esophageal cancers in last four years.

METHODOLOGY

A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Upper GI Surgery, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi. All diagnosed cases of esophageal carcinoma undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy, from 2019 to 2022 were included in this study. Outcomes measured were operative time, intra operative complications, conversion rate to open, postoperative complications, number of lymph nodes harvested, margin clearance, in-hospital mortality and 90-days mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 53 cases were included in the study, the most prevalent histological type was squamous cell carcinoma 42(79.2%) as compared to adenocarcinoma 8(15.1%). Most common tumor site was lower thoracic esophagus (30-38 cm) in 20 (56.6%) cases. Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy was given in all 53(100%) cases, whereas neo-adjuvant radiation therapy was offered to 49(92.5%) patients. There was a significant and favorable patient response to the neo-adjuvant treatment in 37(69.8%) cases, leading to a decrease in tumor size. Laparoscopic McKeown Esophagectomies were performed in 44 (83.0%) and 9(17.0%) were Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). Intraoperative injuries (i.e., lung parenchymal injury and bleeding) were reported in only 2(3.8%) patients. Post-operative complications were recorded in 12(22.6%) patients. Margin clearance was observed in 53 (100%) of the patients. The 90-day mortality rate was 3(5.7%), one due to bleeding and other two mortalities were due to COVID related respiratory complications.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive esophagectomy was found to be safe and feasible technique with encouraging results in terms of decreased intraoperative and post operative complications as well as achieving the standard oncological surgery with acceptable lymph node yield and margin clearance and in hospital and 90 days mortality.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American Society for Radiation Oncology Updated Clinical Practice Guidelines on Multimodality Therapy for Locally Advanced Cancer of the Esophagus or Gastroesophageal Junction

Outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer have improved over the last decade with the implementation of multimodality therapy. There are currently no comprehensive guidelines addressing multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer that have incorporated the input of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. To address the need for multidisciplinary input in the management of esophageal cancer and to meet current best practices for clinical practice guidelines, the current guidelines were created as a collaboration between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Physician representatives chose 8 key clinical questions pertinent to the care of patients with locally advanced, resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (excluding cervical location). A comprehensive literature review was performed identifying 227 articles that met the inclusion criteria covering the use of induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy before surgery, optimal radiation dose, the value of esophagectomy, timing of esophagectomy, the approach and extent of lymphadenectomy, the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and the value of adjuvant therapy after resection. The relevant data were reviewed and voted on by the panel with 80% of the authors, with 75% agreement on class and level of evidence. These data were then complied into the guidelines document.

The influence of minimally invasive esophagectomy on wound infection in patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery: A meta-analysis

The impacts of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in comparison with open esophagectomy (OE) on postoperative complications, wound infections and hospital length of stay in patients with esophageal carcinoma (ESCA) using meta-analysis to provide reliable evidence for clinical practice. A search strategy was developed and computer searches were performed on Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, China Biomedical Literature Database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases for clinical studies that reported the effects of MIE in comparison with OE in patients with ESCA. The retrieval time was from their inception to October 2023. Two authors independently performed literature screening, and data extraction and literature quality evaluation were performed separately for the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 17.0 software. Overall, 26 studies with 2427 ESCA patients were included in this study, of which 1203 were in the MIE group and 1224 were in the OE group. The results showed that, compared with OE, ESCA patients who underwent MIE were less likely to develop postoperative wound infections (odds ratio [OR] = 0.31, 95% confidence intervals [CIs]: 0.20-0.49, p < 0.001) and complications (OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.18-0.30, p < 0.001) and have a shorter hospital stay (standardized mean difference = -1.93, 95% CI: -2.38 to -1.48, p < 0.001). MIE has advantages over OE in terms of shorter hospital stay and reduced incidence of postoperative wound infections and complications.

Robotic-Assisted Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy Is Safe and Cost Equivalent Compared to Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in a Tertiary Referral Center

In recent decades, robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been increasingly adopted for patients with esophageal cancer (EC) or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). However, concerns regarding its costs compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) have emerged. This study examined outcomes and costs of RAMIE versus total MIE in 128 patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for EC/GEJ at our department between 2017 and 2021. Surgical costs were higher for RAMIE (EUR 12,370 vs. EUR 10,059, p < 0.001). Yet, median daily (EUR 2023 vs. EUR 1818, p = 0.246) and total costs (EUR 30,510 vs. EUR 29,180, p = 0.460) were comparable. RAMIE showed a lower incidence of postoperative pneumonia (8% vs. 25%, p = 0.029) and a trend towards shorter hospital stays (15 vs. 17 days, p = 0.205), which may have equalized total costs. Factors independently associated with higher costs included readmission to the intensive care unit (hazard ratio [HR] = 7.0), length of stay (HR = 13.5), anastomotic leak (HR = 17.0), and postoperative pneumonia (HR = 5.4). In conclusion, RAMIE does not impose an additional financial burden. This suggests that RAMIE may be considered as a valid alternative approach for esophagectomy. Attention to typical cost factors can enhance postoperative care across surgical methods.

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy Between Da Vinci Robot-Assisted Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy and McKeown Esophagectomy for Middle and Lower Thoracic Esophageal Cancer: A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

We compared the perioperative efficacy and safety of da Vinci robot-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and McKeown esophagectomy for middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective case-control study method was used. A total of 181 patients with esophageal cancer admitted to three medical centers in China from February 2018 to October 2022 were collected and divided into two groups according to surgical method: da Vinci robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (Ivor Lewis group) and RATS McKeown esophagectomy (McKeown group), respectively. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used to reduce selection bias caused by confounding factors. The perioperative indicators of the two groups were compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference in age and tumor location between the Ivor Lewis group and the McKeown group. After PSM, the above factors were no longer statistically significant. There were 80 patients in each group after PSM. In terms of operative time (P = 0.005), anastomotic leakage (P = 0.029), and pulmonary infection (P = 0.035), the Ivor Lewis group has significant advantages; in terms of the number of lymph nodes dissected around the recurrent laryngeal nerve (P = 0.010), the McKeown group has significant advantages.

CONCLUSION

Both RATS Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and McKeown esophagectomy are safe and effective for treatment of middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer. Ivor Lewis has advantages in operative time, anastomotic leakage, and pulmonary infection, while McKeown has advantage in lymph node dissection around the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

Effect of thoracic cage width on surgery time and postoperative outcome in minimally invasive esophagectomy

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer is a complex procedure that reduces postoperative morbidity in comparison to open approach. In this study, thoracic cage width as a factor to predict surgical difficulty in MIE was evaluated.

METHODS

All patients of our institution receiving either total MIE or robotic-assisted MIE (RAMIE) with intrathoracic anastomosis between February 2016 and April 2021 for esophageal cancer were included in this study. Right unilateral thoracic cage width on the level of vena azygos crossing the esophagus was measured by the horizontal distance between the esophagus and parietal pleura on preoperative computer tomography. Patients' data as well as operative and postoperative details were collected in a prospective database. Correlation between thoracic cage width with duration of the thoracic procedure and postoperative complication rates was analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 313 patients were eligible for this study. Thoracic width on vena azygos level ranged from 85 to 149 mm with a mean of 116.5 mm. In univariate analysis, a small thoracic width significantly correlated with longer duration of the thoracic procedure (p = 0.014). In multivariate analysis, small thoracic width and neoadjuvant therapy were identified as independent factors for long duration of the thoracic procedure (p = 0.006). Regarding postoperative complications, thoracic cage width was a significant risk factor for occurrence of postoperative pneumonia in the multivariate analysis (p = 0.045). Dividing the cohort into two groups of patients with narrow (≤ 107 mm, 19.5%) and wide thoraces (≥ 108 mm, 80.5%), the thoracic procedure was significantly prolonged by 17 min (204 min vs. 221 min, p = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

A small thoracic cage width is significantly correlated with longer operation time during thoracic phase of a MIE in Europe, which suggests increased surgical difficulty. Patients with small thoracic cage width may preferably be operated by MIE-experienced surgeons.

Comparison of erector spinae plane block with paravertebral block for thoracoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of erector spinae plane block versus paravertebral block for thoracoscopic surgery remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the impact of erector spinae plane block versus paravertebral block on thoracoscopic surgery.

METHODS

We have searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through March 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of erector spinae plane block versus paravertebral block on thoracoscopic surgery. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with erector spinae plane block for thoracoscopic surgery, paravertebral block results in significantly reduced pain scores at 12 h (SMD = 1.12; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.81; P = 0.002) and postoperative anesthesia consumption (SMD = 1.27; 95% CI 0.30 to 2.23; P = 0.01), but these two groups have similar pain scores at 1-2 h (SMD = 1.01; 95% CI - 0.13 to 2.15; P 0.08) and 4-6 h (SMD = 0.33; 95% CI - 0.16 to 0.81; P = 0.19), as well as incidence of nausea and vomiting (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.38 to 2.29; P = 0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

Paravertebral block may be better for the pain relief after thoracoscopic surgery than erector spinae plane block.

Outcomes of early fiberoptic bronchoscopic sputum aspiration and lavage after thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophageal cancer surgery: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

This study aims to investigate the outcomes of patients who received early fiberoptic bronchoscopic sputum aspiration and lavage after thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy due to esophageal cancer.

METHODS

A prospective randomized clinical trial was performed between March 2020 and June 2022. Patients who were scheduled for thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy due to esophageal cancer were enrolled. Then, these patients were assigned to the control group (traditional postoperative care) and study group (traditional postoperative care with early bronchoscopic sputum aspiration and lavage). The outcomes, which included the length of hospital stay and medical expenses, and postoperative complications, which included pulmonary infection, atelectasis, respiratory dysfunction and anastomotic leakage, were compared between these two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients were enrolled for the present study, and 53 patients were assigned for the control and study groups. There were no statistically significant differences in gender, age, and location of the esophageal cancer between the two groups. Furthermore, the length of hospital stay was statistically significantly shorter and the medical expenses were lower during hospitalization in the study group, when compared to the control group (12.3 ± 1.2 vs. 18.8 ± 1.3 days, 5.5 ± 0.9 vs. 7.2 ± 1.2 Chinese Yuan, respectively; all, P < 0.05). Moreover, there were statistically significantly fewer incidences of overall complications in study group, when compared to the control group (20.7% vs.45.2%, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with esophageal cancer, early fiberoptic bronchoscopic sputum aspiration and lavage after thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy can shorten the length of hospital stay, and lower the medical expense and incidence of postoperative complications.

Efficacy and complications of single-port thoracoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a single-center experience

The traditional surgical technique for esophageal cancer is mainly open esophagectomy. With the innovation of surgical instruments, it is necessary to re-optimize the minimally invasive surgery. Therefore, single-port thoracoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy (SPTE) is an important direction of development. This study retrospectively analyzed 202 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma undergoing SPTE. Surgical variables and postoperative complications were further evaluated. All procedures were performed using SPTE. The number of patients who received R0 resection was 201 (99.5%). The total number of resected lymph nodes during the whole operation was on average 32.01 ± 12.15, and the mean number of positive lymph nodes was 1.56 ± 2.51. In 170 cases (84.2%), intraoperative blood loss did not exceed 100 ml (ml), while 1 case had postoperative bleeding. Only 1 patient (0.5%) required reoperation after surgery. Postoperative complications included 42 cases of pneumonia (20.8%), 9 cases of anastomotic leak (4.5%), 7 cases of pleural effusion (3.8%), and 1 case (0.5%) of both pleural hemorrhage and acute gastrointestinal hemorrhagic ulcer. Besides, we also recorded the time to remove the drain tube, which averaged 9.13 ± 5.31 days. In our study, we confirmed that the application of SPTE in clinical practice is feasible, and that the postoperative complications are at a low level.

Novel Mediastinoscope-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is an expanding field of surgery that has replaced many open surgical techniques. Surgery remains a cornerstone in the treatment of esophageal cancer, yet it is still associated with significant morbidity and technical difficulties. Mediastinoscope-assisted esophagectomy is a promising technique that aims to decrease the surgical burden and enhance recovery.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched for publications on mediastinoscope-assisted esophagectomies for esophageal cancer. The primary endpoint was a postoperative anastomotic leak, while secondary endpoints were assessment of harvested lymph nodes (LNs), blood loss, chyle leak, hospital length of stay (LOS), operative (OR) time, pneumonia, wound infection, mortality, and microscopic positive margin (R1). The pooled event rate (PER) and pooled mean were calculated for binary and continuous outcomes respectively.

RESULTS

Twenty-six out of the 2274 searched studies were included. The pooled event rate (PER) for anastomotic leak was 0.145 (0.1144; 0.1828). The PERs for chyle leak, recurrent laryngeal nerve injury/hoarseness, postoperative pneumonia, wound infection, early mortality, postoperative morbidity, and microscopically positive (R1) resection margins were 0.027, 0.185, 0.09, 0.083, 0.020, 0.378, and 0.037 respectively. The pooled means for blood loss, hospital stay, operative time, number of total harvested LNs, and number of harvested thoracic LNs were 159.209, 15.187, 311.116, 23.379, and 15.458 respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Mediastinoscopic esophagectomy is a promising minimally invasive technique, avoiding thoracotomy, patient repositioning, and lung manipulation; thus allowing for shorter surgery, decreased blood loss, and decreased postoperative morbidity. It can also be reliable in terms of oncological safety and LN dissection.

Thoracolaparoscopic radical esophagectomy for esophageal cancer based on the mesoesophageal theory

To explore the feasibility of mesangium or membrane anatomy theory in thoracolaparoscopic radical esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, 98 patients with esophageal cancer were enrolled including 45 patients in the mesoesophageal esophagectomy group and 53 patients in the non-mesoesophageal esophagectomy group. Thoracolaparoscopic radical esophagecotmy was technically successful in all patients. Compared the non-mesoesophageal group, the mesoesophageal group had significantly (P < 0.05) shorter surgical duration (211.9 ± 42.0 min vs. 282.0 ± 44.5 min), less blood loss during the procedure (68.9 ± 45.9 ml vs. 167.0 ± 91.4 ml), more harvested lymph nodes (25.9 ± 6.3 vs. 21.8 ± 7.3), shorter hospital stay after surgery (10.5 ± 2.5 d vs. 12.5 ± 4.2 d), shorter fasting time or quicker postoperative feeding time (7.3 ± 1.2 d vs. 9.5 ± 3.9 d), and quicker removal of the thoracic drainage tube after surgery (7.7 ± 2.0 d vs. 9.2 ± 4.1 d). The overall incidence of postoperative complications was 46.7% (21/45) in the mesoesophageal group, which was significantly (P = 0.02) fewer than that (69.8% or 37/53) of the non-mesoesophageal group (P = 0.020). During follow-up 20.6 ± 4.3 or 20.8 ± 3.4 months after esophagectomy, liver metastasis occurred in 1 case and lung metastasis in 1 in the mesoesophageal group, whereas liver metastasis occurred in 2 cases, mediastinal metastasis in 2, and anastomotic recurrence in 1 in the non-mesoesophageal group. The mesoesophageal group had significantly better physical function (81.9 ± 7.3 vs. 78.3 ± 7.6), social function (65.1 ± 7.1 vs. 56.2 ± 18.2), global health status (65.3 ± 10.1 vs. 58.7 ± 12.4), and pain improvement (29.5 ± 9.5 vs. 35.6 ± 10.6). The overall survival rate was 82.2% (37/45) in the mesoesophageal group and 71.7% (38/53) in the non-mesoesophageal group (P = 0.26). The disease-free survival rate was 77.8% (35/45) for the mesoesophageal group and 62.3% (33/53) for the non-mesoesophageal group (P = 0.13). In conclusion:, the mesangium or membrane anatomy theory can be used safely and effectively to guide thoracolaparoscopic radical esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, with advantages of shorter surgical time, less bleeding, more lymph node harvest, fewer complications, and faster postoperative recovery.

Combined Ultrasound-Guided Thoracic Paravertebral Nerve Block with Subcostal Transversus Abdominis Plane Block for Analgesia After Total Minimally Invasive Mckeown Esophagectomy: A Randomized, Controlled, and Prospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) and subcostal transverse abdominis plane block (TAP) have been considered to provide an effective analgesic effect for laparoscopic and thoracoscopic surgery, respectively. The purpose of this randomized, controlled, and prospective study was to evaluate the analgesic effect of TPVB combined with TAP in patients undergoing total minimally invasive Mckeown esophagectomy.

METHODS

Between February 2020 and December 2021, a total of 168 esophageal cancer patients undergoing McKeown esophagectomy at the Cancer Center of Sun Yat-Sen University, China, were randomly assigned to receive patient-controlled epidural analgesia alone (group PCEA, n = 56), patient-controlled intravenous analgesia alone (group PCIA, n = 56), and TPVB combined with TAP and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (group PVB, n = 56). The primary outcome was a visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score on movement 48 h postoperatively. Secondary endpoints were pain scores at other points, intervention-related side effects, surgical complications, and length of intensive care unit and hospital stay. For the VAS pain score, the Kruskal-Wallis method was conducted for comparison of 3 treatment groups and further pairwise comparison with Bonferroni correction.

RESULTS

On movement, the VAS in the PVB group was higher than that in the PCEA group at 48 h, 72 h, 96 h, and 120 h postoperatively (p < 0.05) except in the postoperative anesthesia care unit (PACU) and 24 h postoperatively. The VAS in the PCIA group was higher than the PCEA and PVB groups in the first 4 days after surgery. The pulmonary complication rate in the PCIA group was significantly higher than the rate in the PCEA [95% Confidence Interval 0.214 (0.354, 0.067), p = 0.024].

CONCLUSIONS

Combined TPVB and TAP was more effective than intravenous opioid analgesia alone, while PCEA was more effective than TPVB combined with TAP and intravenous opioid analgesia for patients after McKeown esophagectomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; ChiCTR2000029588.

Patterns of Recurrence and Long-Term Survival of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Open Esophagectomy for Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: a Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) as a treatment for patients with esophageal cancer has recently become more common worldwide. However, differences in the pattern of recurrence between MIE and open esophagectomy (OE) using the transthoracic approach have not been fully investigated, particularly in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

We searched the prospective databases of two institutes for patients with esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by esophagectomy between 2011 and 2018. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed to reduce bias from confounding patient-related variables. Operative outcomes, regionally harvested lymph nodes (LNs), recurrence pattern, and prognosis were investigated in two groups.

RESULTS

We identified 410 patients who underwent OE (n = 263) and MIE (n = 147). After propensity score matching, 131 pairs of patients were selected. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics after matching. The total number of harvested LNs in both groups was similar (55.1 vs. 58.9, P = 0.132). The incidence of LN recurrence in the MIE group was significantly lower than that in the OE group (27% vs. 15%, P = 0.010). In particular, the incidence of mediastinal LN recurrence in the MIE group was significantly lower than that in the OE group (16% vs. 6%, P = 0.017). There were no significant differences between the two groups in hematogenous (19% vs.12%, P = 0.173), dissemination (5% vs. 4%, P = 0.769), local (4% vs. 1%. P = 0.213), and other recurrence (3% vs. 3%, P = 1.000). The 3-year disease-free and overall survival of MIE were significantly better than OE (71.4% vs. 50.5%, P = 0.004 and 80.3% vs. 61.2%, P = 0.002, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that the thoracic approach (OE vs. MIE) (HR 1.93, P = 0.004) was an independent prognostic factor, along with the pathological N stage (HR 3.05, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

MIE has less intramediastinal LN recurrence than OE and may lead to a better long-term prognosis in patients with advanced esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Semiprone thoracoscopic approach during totally minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy seems to be beneficial

Minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy (MIE) is widely accepted as a surgical treatment of resectable esophageal cancer. Aim of this paper is to describe the surgical details of our standardized MIE technique and its safety. We also evaluate the esophageal mobilization in semiprone compared to the left lateral position. A retrospective analysis of 141 consecutive patients who underwent Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for cancer, from February 2016 to September 2021, was conducted. All the procedures were performed by totally thoraco-laparoscopic with an intrathoracic end-to-side circular stapled anastomosis. Thoracic phase was performed in left lateral position (LLP-group, n=47) followed by a semiprone position (SP-group, n=94). The intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were prospectively collected and analyzed. The procedure was completed without intraoperative complication in 94.68% of cases in SP-group and in 93.62% of cases in LLP-group (P=0.99). The total operative time and thoracic operative time were significantly shorter in SP-group (P=0.0096; P=0.009). No statistically significant differences were detected in postoperative outcomes between the groups, except for anastomotic strictures (higher in LLP-group, P=0.02) and intensive care unit stay (longer in LLP-group, P=00.1). No reoperation was needed in any cases. Surgical radicality was comparable; the median of harvested lymph nodes was significantly higher in SP-group (P<0.0001). The present semiprone technique of thoraco-laparoscopic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy is safe and feasible but may also provide some advantages in terms of lymph nodes harvested and total operation time.

Application of single-port laparoscopic retrograde gastric mobilization during McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

As a novel alternative to the conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) to treat esophageal cancer, single-port laparoscopic retrograde three-step gastric mobilization (SLRM) for esophageal reconstruction during MIE to treat esophageal cancer was attempted in our department. The aim of the present study was to explore the preliminary clinical outcomes and feasibility of this innovative surgery.

METHODS

From March 2020 to November 2021, patients undergoing SLRM combined with four-port thoracoscopic McKeown esophagectomy for their esophageal cancers were reviewed. Gastric mobilization with abdominal lymph node dissection was performed through SLRM. The clinical characteristics and short-term outcomes were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients underwent R0 resection without conversion to open surgery. The mean times needed for the thoracic part, abdominal part, and total operation were 43 ± 6 min, 60 ± 18 min, and 230 ± 20 min, respectively. The numbers of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes harvested were 13.2 ± 2.7 and 10.2 ± 2.5, respectively. Postoperative pneumonia was encountered in 10 (8.3%) patients. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 3 (2.5%) cases. Temporary vocal cord paralysis was reported in 20 (16.6%) cases. The mean length of hospital stay was 8.5 ± 4.6 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The SLRM is a technically feasible and safe treatment for patients with esophageal cancer. It can be considered an alternative method for patients, especially for the ones with obesity and gastric distension.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer comparing cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil versus docetaxel plus cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

The standard treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer is preoperative chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (CF), followed by surgery. Although docetaxel plus cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) has been reported to have favorable outcomes, no study has compared its therapeutic efficacy to that of standard treatment. This study aimed to compare the therapeutic effects of CF and DCF in the real world by matching patient background factors using propensity scores.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the data of 237 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent esophagectomy between January 2008 and December 2018. Patients were divided into two groups based on the preoperative chemotherapy regimens of CF (79 patients) or DCF (158 patients), and 49 matched pairs were finally analyzed using propensity score matching. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

After matching, although no significant differences in survival were observed among the groups, patients receiving DCF showed a significantly high histological response (P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that DCF therapy had better overall survival (P = 0.046) and relapse-free survival (P = 0.010) among pathological T3 and T4 cases. Whereas, adverse effects of chemotherapy were more frequent in the DCF group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving DCF had higher pathological response and better survival than those receiving CF, especially in pathological T3 and T4 cases matched using propensity scores. Thus, the DCF regimen might be an effective treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer. However, the adverse side effects of chemotherapy remain high and should be handled appropriately.

Effect of modified esophagectomy perioperative technique resection for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer (tumor length > 8 cm): initial experience in 45 cases

Background

Patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer with a lesion length greater than 8 cm (LCWEC) are prone to high mortality in a short time due to esophagotracheal fistula (ETF) and esophagoaortic fistula (EAF). We tried to explore a safe salvage surgical method during the perioperative period to maximize the resection of the tumor on the premise of safety and reconstruction of the alimentary tract to avoid early death due to ETF and EAF.

Methods

From December 2007 to November 2018, forty-five LCWEC patients were treated using the modified Wu’s esophagectomy. Patient features, surgical techniques, postoperative complications, and pathology outcomes were analyzed.

Results

The average length of the tumors was 12.5 cm (range 8.1–22.5 cm), and the average transverse tumor diameter was 5.8 cm (range 4.5–7.8 cm). No complications like anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stenosis, chylothorax, delayed gastric emptying, vocal cord paralysis, dumping syndrome, and reflux were detected. The 30-day and in-hospital mortality rates were 0%. Complete (R0) resection was achieved in 38 (84.4%) cases. The resection margin rate of positive anastomosis was 0%. Until the death of the patients, no feeding failure due to gastrointestinal obstruction and early death due to ETF or EAF occurrence. During follow-up, the median time to death was 17.2 months for patients treated with surgery alone and 32 months for patients treated with postoperative multimodal treatment.

Conclusion

The modified Wu’s esophagectomy is a safe and feasible salvage surgical method for LCWEC resection.

Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on esophagectomies in esophageal cancer: The superiority of minimally invasive surgery

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses, with many limitations, have described the beneficial nature of minimal invasive procedures.

AIM

To compare all modalities of esophagectomies to each other from the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Reference Citation Analysis (https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com/) and CENTRAL databases to identify RCTs according to the following population, intervention, control, outcome (commonly known as PICO): P: Patients with resectable esophageal cancer; I/C: Transthoracic, transhiatal, minimally invasive (thoracolaparoscopic), hybrid, and robot-assisted esophagectomy; O: Survival, total adverse events, adverse events in subgroups, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. We used the Bayesian approach and the random effects model. We presented the geometry of the network, results with probabilistic statements, estimated intervention effects and their 95% confidence interval (CI), and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve to rank the interventions.

RESULTS

We included 11 studies in our analysis. We found a significant difference in postoperative pulmonary infection, which favored the minimally invasive intervention compared to transthoracic surgery (risk ratio 0.49; 95%CI: 0.23 to 0.99). The operation time was significantly shorter for the transhiatal approach compared to transthoracic surgery (mean difference -85 min; 95%CI: -150 to -29), hybrid intervention (mean difference -98 min; 95%CI: -190 to -9.4), minimally invasive technique (mean difference -130 min; 95%CI: -210 to -50), and robot-assisted esophagectomy (mean difference -150 min; 95%CI: -240 to -53). Other comparisons did not yield significant differences.

CONCLUSION

Based on our results, the implication of minimally invasive esophagectomy should be favored.

Meta-analysis of robot-assisted versus video-assisted McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

We aim to review the available literature on patients with esophageal cancer treated with robot-assisted (RAME) or video-assisted McKeown's esophagectomy (VAME), to compare the efficacy and safety of the two approaches. Original research studies that evaluated perioperative and oncologic outcomes of RAME versus VAME were identified, from January 1990 to July 2022. The 90-day mortality, the R0 resection rate, the dissected lymph nodes, the perioperative parameters, and the complications were calculated according to a fixed and a random effect model. The Q statistics and I² statistic were used to test for heterogeneity among the studies. Seven studies were included, incorporating a total of 1617 patients treated with RAME or VAME. The 90-day mortality was similar between the two groups. No difference was found regarding the R0 resection rate and the number of dissected lymph nodes. In addition, the perioperative parameters, along with the total complications were similar between RAME and VAME. Nonetheless, the incidence of postoperative pneumonia was higher in the VAME group (OR:0.67 [95% CI: 0.49, 0.93]; p = 0.02). Finally, our outcomes were further validated by sensitivity analysis including only studies performing propensity score-matched analysis. Our meta-analysis showed that RAME was equivalent to VAME in terms of safety, feasibility, and oncologic adequacy. These results should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of included studies. New Randomized Controlled trials, that are currently active, will provide further evidence with greater clarity to assess the effectiveness and safety of RAME for esophageal cancer.

Outcomes of Minimally Invasive and Robot-Assisted Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

Simple Summary

This is an invited review for the special edition, “Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cancer: Indications and Outcomes.” Indications to perform minimally invasive techniques for esophagectomy rather than the classic open technique do not exist. This review outlines the current research by comparing outcomes among minimally invasive esophagectomy, robot-assisted esophagectomy, and open esophagectomy. After determining the benefits of each technique in terms of each outcome, the discussion focuses on how surgeons may use the presented information to determine which approach is most appropriate. We hope this study provides a comprehensive review of the current state of the literature regarding minimally invasive esophagectomy, as well as a guide for surgeons who treat patients with esophageal cancer.

Abstract

With the evolution of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE), questions remain regarding the benefits and indications of these methods. Given that set indications do not exist, this article aims first to review the reported outcomes of MIE, RAMIE, and open esophagectomy. Then, considerations based on the reported outcomes are discussed to guide surgeons in selecting the best approach. MIE and RAMIE offer the potential to improve outcomes for esophagectomy patients; however, surgeon experience as well as individual patient factors play important roles when deciding upon the surgical approach.

Is there a relationship between two different anesthetic methods and postoperative length of stay during radical resection of malignant esophageal tumors in China?: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Data providing a relationship between the anesthetic method and postoperative length of stay (PLOS) is limited. We aimed to investigate whether general anesthesia alone or combined with epidural anesthesia might affect perioperative risk factors and PLOS for patients undergoing radical resection of malignant esophageal tumors.

METHODS

The study retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 680 patients who underwent a radical esophageal malignant tumor resection in a Chinese hospital from January 01, 2010, to December 31, 2020. The primary outcome measure was PLOS, and the secondary outcome was perioperative risk-related parameters that affect PLOS. The independent variable was the type of anesthesia: general anesthesia (GA) or combined epidural-general anesthesia (E-GA). The dependent variable was PLOS. We conducted univariate and multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching to compare the relationships of GA and E-GA with PLOS and identify the perioperative risk factors for PLOS. In this cohort study, the confounders included sociodemographic data, preoperative chemotherapy, coexisting diseases, laboratory parameters, intraoperative variables, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

In all patients, the average PLOS was 19.85 ± 12.60 days. There was no significant difference in PLOS between the GA group and the E-GA group either before or after propensity score matching (20.01 days ± 14.90 days vs. 19.79 days ± 11.57 days, P = 0.094, 18.09 ± 9.71 days vs. 19.39 ± 10.75 days, P = 0.145). The significant risk factors for increased PLOS were lung infection (β = 3.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.54-5.52), anastomotic leakage (β = 25.73, 95% CI: 22.11-29.34), and surgical site infection (β = 9.39, 95% CI: 4.10-14.68) by multivariate regression analysis. Subgroup analysis revealed a stronger association between PLOS and vasoactive drug use, blood transfusions, and open esophagectomy. The results remained essentially the same (stable and reliable) after subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is no significant association between the type of anesthesia(GA or E-GA) and PLOS for patients undergoing radical esophageal malignant tumor resection, an association between PLOS and lung infection, anastomotic leakage, and surgical site infection was determined by multivariate regression analysis. A larger sample future study design may verify our results.

Selection of minimally invasive surgical approaches for treating esophageal cancer

Minimally invasive esophagectomy has gradually been accepted as an active treatment option for surgery of esophageal cancer. However, there is no consensus about how to perform the procedures in the thoracic and abdominal phase including anastomosis in the neck (McKeown) or chest (Ivor Lewis), VATS, robotic‐assisted or reduced port approaches or various endoscopic abrasion techniques. Further studies to investigate the roles of these novel techniques are required to treat the various patient populations.

En bloc mesoesophageal esophagectomy through thoracoscopy combined with laparoscopy based on the mesoesophageal theory

PURPOSE

To investigate the effectiveness and clinical significance of thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy with mesoesophagus excision.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent en bloc mesoesophageal esophagectomy through thoracoscopy combined with laparoscopy were retrospectively enrolled. Carbon nanoparticles were used in some patients to label the esophageal drainage lymph nodes. The clinical data were analyzed.

RESULTS

En bloc mesoesophageal esophagectomy was successfully performed in 135 patients (100%). The carbon nanoparticles were used in 10 patients, among which the left gastric arterial lymph nodes were labeled in all patients and excised together with the left gastric mesentery, mesoesophagus, esophageal cancer, lymph nodes, vessels, nerves, and adipose tissues as one intact package. The mean operation time was 182.5 ± 26.4 min, intraoperative blood loss 45.9 ± 17.6 ml, mean number of lymph nodes dissected 20.9 ± 8.12, extubation time of drainage tubes 7.5 ± 3.8 days, first oral feeding time 7.5 ± 1.8 days, and postoperative hospital stay 13 ± 5.11 days. Postoperatively, anastomotic leakage occurred in six patients (4.4%), anastomotic stenosis in eight (5.9%), hoarseness in seven (5.2%), and inflammation of the remnant stomach in four (3.0%), with a complication rate of 18.5%. Patients were followed up for 13-34 months (median 23). Eighteen patients presented with organ metastasis. No local recurrence or death during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Based on the membrane anatomy or mesoesophagus theory, thoracolaparoscopic en bloc mesoesophageal esophagectomy is safe, with decreased blood loss, and it is necessary to resect the left gastric artery lymph nodes together with the left gastric mesentery and its contents to completely remove the cancer.

Robot-assisted versus video-assisted thoraco-laparoscopic McKeown's esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis of minimally invasive approaches

Minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer decreases overall complication rate and leads to faster postoperative recovery. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy is becoming more common. Its three-dimensional view and wristed instruments may provide advantages over traditional thoraco-laparoscopic techniques. There are limited studies comparing robotic and conventional thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy. This study aimed to evaluate short-term outcomes of robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy (RAME) and video-assisted McKeown esophagectomy (VAME). All consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for middle and distal third esophageal cancer between January 2016 and December 2018 at our center were included in this study. Data on baseline characteristics, pathological data and short-term outcomes were collected in a dedicated database. Postoperative complications were defined as per recommendations of Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group. Histopathologic assessment was performed as per College of American Pathologists guidelines. Propensity score matching was performed for comparison between RAME and VAME groups using age, gender, performance status, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, body mass index, Charlson Index, tumor location, clinical tumor stage, and neoadjuvant treatment as covariates. A total of 74 patients were included, 25 of whom underwent RAME and 49 underwent VAME. Propensity score matching on 1:1 basis produced 25 pairs of patients, comparable in terms of baseline characteristics. Total operative time and estimated blood loss was similar between the two groups. Length of hospital stay was significantly lower in RAME group. Major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3A) were more common in VAME group, but not statistically significant. Median number of harvested lymph nodes and R0 resection rate did not differ in between the two groups. In our experience, robot-assisted McKeown esophagectomy was comparable to video-assisted McKeown esophagectomy in terms of safety, feasibility and oncologic adequacy. Use of the robot was associated with reduced hospital stay. Further randomized controlled studies with larger patient samples are needed to compare the two.

Operative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy versus Open Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer

Background There is a recent rise in the incidence of esophageal carcinoma in India. Surgical resection with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiation is the current treatment modality of choice. Postoperative complications, especially pulmonary complications, affect many patients who undergo open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) could reduce the pulmonary complications and reduce the postoperative stay.

Methodology We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 114 patients with esophageal cancer in the department of surgical oncology at a tertiary cancer center in South India between January 2019 and March 2020. We included patients with resectable cancer of middle or lower third of the esophagus, and gastroesophageal junction tumors (Siewert I). MIE was performed in 27 patients and 78 patients underwent open esophagectomy (OE). The primary outcome measured was postoperative complications of Clavien–Dindo grade II or higher within 30 days. Other outcomes measured include overall mortality within 30 days, intraoperative complications, operative duration and the length of hospital stay.

Results A postoperative complication rate of 18.5% was noted in the MIE group, compared with 41% in the OE group ( p = 0.034). Pulmonary complications were noted in 7.4% in the MIE group compared to 25.6% in the OE group ( p = 0.044). Postoperative mortality rates, intraoperative complications, and other nonpulmonary postoperative complications were almost similar with MIE as with open esophagectomy. Although the median operative time was more in the MIE group (260 minutes vs. 180 minutes; p < 0.0001), the median length of hospital stay was shorter in patients undergoing MIE (9 days vs. 12 days; p = 0.0001).

Conclusions We found that MIE resulted in lower incidence of postoperative complications, especially pulmonary complications. Although, MIE was associated with prolonged operative duration, it resulted in shorter hospital stay.

Outcomes of robotic esophagectomy

Esophagectomy has long been considered the standard of care for early-stage (≤ T2N0) esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), using a combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approach, was first performed in the 1990s and showed significant improvements over open approaches. Refinement of MIE arrived in the form of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in 2004. MIE is a challenging procedure for which consensus on optimal technique is still elusive. Although nonrobotic MIE confers significant advantages over open approaches, MIE remains associated with stubbornly high rates of complications, including pneumonia, aspiration, arrhythmia, anastomotic leakage, surgical site infection, and vocal cord palsy. RAMIE was envisioned to improve operative-associated morbidity while achieving equivalent or superior oncologic outcomes to nonrobotic MIE. However, owing to RAMIE’s significant upfront costs, steep learning curve, and other requirements, adoption remains less than widespread and convincing evidence supporting its use from well-designed studies is lacking. In this review, we compare operative, oncologic, and quality-of-life outcomes between open esophagectomy, nonrobotic MIE, and RAMIE. Although RAMIE remains a relatively new and underexplored modality, several studies in the literature show that it is feasible and results in similar outcomes to other MIE approaches. Moreover, RAMIE has been associated with favorable patient satisfaction and quality of life.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been demonstrated to offer realistic three-dimensional visual clarity, flexible movement and so on. The high cost is the main reason hampering universal application. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of RAMIE versus video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE).

Methods

The PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to June 1, 2021, for studies comparing RAMIE and VAMIE.

Results

Nineteen studies were enrolled, which consisted of a total of 4,714 patients, including 2,306 patients in the RAMIE group and 2,408 patients in the VAMIE group. In RAMIE patients, higher numbers of total lymph nodes (MD =0.171, 95% CI: 0.086–0.255, P<0.001) and lymph nodes along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) (MD =0.219, 95% CI: 0.097–0.340, P<0.001) were removed. In RAMIE patients in the McKown group, higher numbers of total lymph nodes (MD =0.173, 95% CI: 0.080–0.265, P<0.001) and lymph nodes along the left RLN (MD =0.220, 95% CI: 0.090–0.350, P=0.001) were removed, while in those in the ESCC group, higher numbers of total lymph nodes (MD =0.249, 95% CI: 0.091–0.407, P=0.002) and lymph nodes along the left RLN (MD =0.239, 95% CI: 0.102–0.377, P=0.001) were removed.

Discussion

This study indicated that the main advantage of RAMIE was a greater number of harvested lymph nodes, which may be beneficial to diagnosis and local control. RCTs with larger sample sizes and studies reporting long-term outcomes are needed to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of RAMIE and VAMIE.

Guide to Enhanced Recovery for Cancer Patients Undergoing Surgery: ERAS and Oesophagectomy

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols are widely used in oesophageal cancer surgery. Multiple studies have demonstrated that ERAS protocols are associated with a shorter length of stay and a reduction in the incidence of post-operative complications after oesophagectomy. However, there is substantial heterogeneity in the content of ERAS protocols and the delivery of these pathways can be challenging. This paper discusses the key recommendations for ERAS protocols in oesophageal cancer surgery and the barriers and facilitating factors for their successful implementation.

Lymph node metastasis pattern and significance of left gastric artery lymph node dissection in esophagectomy for esophageal cancers

Purpose

To investigate the lymph node metastasis pattern and significance of dissection of the left gastric artery lymph nodes in radical en bloc esophagectomy for esophageal squamous carcinomas based on the lymphatic drainage pathway revealed by carbon nanoparticle labeling.

Materials and methods

Patients who underwent en bloc esophagectomy endoscopically were retrospectively enrolled. Carbon nanoparticles were injected in the submucosa of upper thoracic esophagus to label the relevant draining lymph nodes. The clinical data, lymph nodes dissected, surgical technique, and complications were analyzed.

Results

En bloc esophagectomy was successful in all 179 patients. Metastases to the left gastric artery lymph nodes were positive in 42 patients (23.5%) but negative in 137 (76.5%). The left gastric lymph nodes were labeled, whereas no celiac lymph nodes were labeled by carbon nanoparticles. A total of 4652 lymph nodes were resected, with 26 lymph nodes per patient. Seventy-three patients had lymph node metastasis (73/179). Seventeen patients had metastasis to the recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph nodes (9.5%). The metastasis rate of the lower thoracic esophageal cancer to the left gastric artery lymph nodes was 37.0%, significantly greater than that at the middle (15.4%) or upper (6.7%) thoracic segment. The lymph node metastasis rate was significantly (P < 0.05) increased with the length of the cancerous lesion, infiltration depth, and poor differentiation. Univariate analysis revealed that the metastasis rate to the left gastric artery lymph nodes was significantly (P < 0.05) associated with paraesophageal lymph node metastasis, para-cardial lymph metastasis, and TNM classification. Multivariate analysis indicated that cancer location (odds ratio 8.32, 95% confidence interval 2.12–32.24) was significantly (P < 0.05) associated with metastasis to the left gastric artery lymph nodes, with the cancer at the middle and lower thoracic segments significantly more than in the upper thoracic segment.

Conclusion

Certain patterns exist in lymph node metastasis of esophageal cancer, and in radical esophagectomy of esophageal cancers, dissection of the left gastric artery lymph nodes is necessary to prevent possible residual or metastasis of esophageal squamous carcinomas based on the lymphatic drainage pathway of esophageal carcinomas demonstrated by carbon nanoparticle labeling.

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.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and individual patient data comparing minimally invasive with open oesophagectomy for cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) for oesophageal cancer may reduce surgical complications compared with open oesophagectomy. MIO is, however, technically challenging and may impair optimal oncological resection. The aim of the present study was to assess if MIO for cancer is beneficial.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL was performed and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIO with open oesophagectomy were included in a meta-analysis. Survival was analysed using individual patient data. Random-effects model was used for pooled estimates of perioperative effects.

RESULTS

Among 3219 articles, six RCTs were identified including 822 patients. Three-year overall survival (56 (95 per cent c.i. 49 to 62) per cent for MIO versus 52 (95 per cent c.i. 44 to 60) per cent for open; P = 0.54) and disease-free survival (54 (95 per cent c.i. 47 to 61) per cent versus 50 (95 per cent c.i. 42 to 58) per cent; P = 0.38) were comparable. Overall complication rate was lower for MIO (odds ratio 0.33 (95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.53); P < 0.010) mainly due to fewer pulmonary complications (OR 0.44 (95 per cent c.i. 0.27 to 0.72); P < 0.010), including pneumonia (OR 0.41 (95 per cent c.i. 0.22 to 0.77); P < 0.010).

CONCLUSION

MIO for cancer is associated with a lower risk of postoperative complications compared with open resection. Overall and disease-free survival are comparable for the two techniques.

LAY SUMMARY

Oesophagectomy for cancer is associated with a high risk of complications. A minimally invasive approach might be less traumatic, leading to fewer complications and may also improve oncological outcome. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing minimally invasive to open oesophagectomy was performed. The analysis showed that the minimally invasive approach led to fewer postoperative complications, in particular, fewer pulmonary complications. Survival after surgery was comparable for the two techniques.

Robotic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a propensity-score matched analysis

We aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between robotic esophagectomy (RE) and open esophagectomy (OE) in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Among the patients who underwent esophagectomy for ESCC from 2008 to 2017, 402 patients (n = 178 in RE and n = 224 in OE) were enrolled and, after propensity-score matching, 136 patients in each group were selected. The total rate of complications was comparable, whereas the rate of major complications was higher in OE (p < 0.01). Hospital stay was longer in OE (15 days in OE vs. 13 days in RE; p = 0.03) with a comparable early mortality rate. Complete resection was equally achieved in both groups (96.3% in RE vs. 97.0% in OE; p = 0.74). The numbers of retrieved lymph nodes (LN) were significantly higher in RE (42.8 in RE vs 35.3 in OE; p < 0.01), especially for LNs in the left lower cervical paratracheal, both recurrent laryngeal nerves, and paraesophageal area. The 5-year overall survival rate was higher in RE (75.1% in RE vs. 57.9% in OE; p = 0.02), whereas, the freedom from recurrence was comparable between the two groups (68.8% in RE vs. 54.7% in OE; p = 0.15). Notably, RE achieved a significantly higher rate of 5-year freedom from regional nodal recurrence than OE (81.4% in RE vs. 62.7% in OE, p = 0.03). RE contributed to a lower rate of major complications and shorter hospital stays. Furthermore, RE showed increased long-term overall survival and freedom from regional LN recurrence rates, with a higher yield of LN dissection compared to OE.

Robotic Esophagectomy. A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes

Background: Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy is demonstrated to be related with a facilitation in thoracoscopic procedure. To give an update on the state of art of robotic esophagectomy for cancr a systematic review with meta-analysis has been performed. Methods: a search of the studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic or open esophagectomy was performed trough the medical libraries, with the search string "robotic and (oesophagus OR esophagus OR esophagectomy OR oesophagectomy)". Outcomes were: postoperative complications rate (anastomotic leakage, bleeding, wound infection, pneumonia, recurrent laryngeal nerves paralysis, chylotorax, mortality), intraoperative outcomes (mean blood loss, operative time and conversion), oncologic outcomes (harvested nodes, R0 resection, recurrence) and recovery outcomes (length of hospital stay). Results: Robotic approach is superior to open surgery in terms of blood loss p = 0.001, wound infection rate, p = 0.002, pneumonia rate, p = 0.030 and mean number of harvested nodes, p < 0.0001 and R0 resection rate, p = 0.043. Similarly, robotic approach is superior to conventional laparoscopy in terms of mean number of harvested nodes, p = 0.001 pneumonia rate, p = 0.003. Conclusions: robotic surgery could be considered superior to both open surgery and conventional laparoscopy. These encouraging results should promote the diffusion of the robotic surgery, with the creation of randomized trials to overcome selection bias.

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer by pulling the round ligament without a uterine manipulator

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the experience of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer without the use of a uterine manipulator and investigate the feasibility and treatment effectiveness of this surgical approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer by pulling the round ligament without a uterine manipulator prevented the oppression of the uterine manipulator on the tumour. Vaginal ligation was performed below the lesion of cervical cancer, and the vagina was cut off below the ligation line. Consequently, the exposure of cancer tissues in the abdominal cavity was prevented, enabling a tumour-free operation. We reviewed the medical records of the 22 patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical squamous cell carcinoma who were treated at our hospital between May 2019 and February 2020. All the patients underwent the laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer by pulling the round ligament. All the patients were informed about the different therapeutic schemes and surgical approaches as well as their advantages and disadvantages. Information about operative time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalisation duration, postoperative complications, postoperative adjuvant therapy, prognosis and other data were recorded.

RESULTS

All the surgical procedures were successfully completed without perioperative complications, such as vascular injury, pelvic injury and abdominal organ injury. The mean operative duration was 204 min, and the mean operative blood loss was 102 mL. The mean duration of postoperative hospital stay was 13 days. Nineteen patients received postoperative chemotherapy once before hospital discharge. Urinary retention was the major postoperative complication. All the patients were followed up for 14-23 months. The median follow-up time was 18 months. 21 of the 22 patients survived. No recurrence was detected in the patients during follow-up. One patient who had a pelvic lymph node metastasis but refused complete chemoradiotherapy died before the last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This surgical approach appears to be safe and feasible for patients with cervical cancer. A larger sample size and longer follow-up period are required to confirm whether this surgical approach can actually and effectively improve the prognosis.

Predictive value of postoperative C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio in anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy

Introduction

Among the many possible postoperative complications, anastomotic leakage (AL) is the most common and serious. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the ability of various inflammatory and nutritional markers to predict postoperative AL in patients after esophagectomy.

Methods

A total of 273 patients were retrospectively evaluated and enrolled into this study. Perioperative, surgery-related, tumor-related and laboratory tests data were extracted and analyzed. The discriminatory ability and optimal cut-off value was evaluated according to the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to access the potential risk factors for AL.

Results

The overall incidence of AL was 12.5% (34/273). C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio (CRP/ALB ratio) [AUC 0.943 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.911–0.976, p <  0.001)] and operation time [AUC 0.747 (95% CI = 0.679–0.815, p <  0.001)] had the greatest discrimination on AL prediction. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that CRP/ALB ratio and operation time were two independent risk factors for AL, and CRP/ALB ratio (OR = 102.909, p <  0.001) had an advantage over operation time (OR = 9.363, p = 0.020; Table 3).

Conclusion

Operation time and postoperative CRP/ALB ratio were two independent predictive indexes for AL. Postoperative CRP/ALB ratio greater than 3.00 indicated a high risk of AL. For patients with abnormal postoperative CRP/ALB ratio, early non-operative treatment or surgical intervention are needed to reduce the serious sequelae of AL.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open McKeown for Patients with Esophageal Cancer: A Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy (McKeown-MIE) offers advantages in short-term outcomes compared with McKeown open esophagectomy (McKeown-OE); however, debate as to whether MIE is equivalent or better than OE regarding survival outcomes is ongoing.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare long-term survival between McKeown-MIE and McKeown-OE in a large cohort of esophageal cancer (EC) patients.

METHODS

We used a prospective database (independently managed by LinkDoc company) of the Thoracic Surgery Department at Henan Cancer Hospital and included patients who underwent McKeown-MIE and McKeown-OE for EC from 1 January 2015 to 6 January 2018. The perioperative data and overall survival (OS) rate in the two groups were retrospectively compared.

RESULTS

We included 502 patients who underwent McKeown-MIE (n = 306) or McKeown-OE (n = 196) for EC. The median age in the total patient population was 63 years. All baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the two groups. There was a significantly shorter mean operative time (269.76 min vs. 321.14 min, p < 0.001) in the OE group. The 30-day and in-hospital mortality rates were 0, and there was no difference in 90-day mortality (p = 0.053) between the groups. The postoperative stay was shorter in the MIE group and was 14 days and 18 days in the MIE and OE groups, respectively (p < 0.001). The OS at 60 months was 58.8% and 41.6% in the MIE and OE groups, respectively (p < 0.001) [hazard ratio 1.783, 95% confidence interval 1.347-2.359].

CONCLUSIONS

These results showed that McKeown-MIE was associated with better long-term survival than McKeown-OE for patients with resectable EC.

Brazilian Group of Gastrointestinal Tumours' consensus guidelines for the management of oesophageal cancer

Oesophageal cancer is among the ten most common types of cancer worldwide. More than 80% of the cases and deaths related to the disease occur in developing countries. Local socio-economic, epidemiologic and healthcare particularities led us to create a Brazilian guideline for the management of oesophageal and oesophagogastric junction (OGJ) carcinomas. The Brazilian Group of Gastrointestinal Tumours invited 50 physicians with different backgrounds, including radiology, pathology, endoscopy, nuclear medicine, genetics, oncological surgery, radiotherapy and clinical oncology, to collaborate. This document was prepared based on an extensive review of topics related to heredity, diagnosis, staging, pathology, endoscopy, surgery, radiation, systemic therapy (including checkpoint inhibitors) and follow-up, which was followed by presentation, discussion and voting by the panel members. It provides updated evidence-based recommendations to guide clinical management of oesophageal and OGJ carcinomas in several scenarios and clinical settings.

Thoracoscopy-Assisted Esophagectomy vs Transhiatal Esophagectomy for Carcinoma Esophagus: a Prospective Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) was popularized to reduce the morbidity of esophagectomy. Thoracoscopy-assisted esophagectomy (TAE) offers esophageal dissection under magnified vision. This study compares the short-term morbidity and oncological outcome following TAE and THE for esophageal carcinoma.

METHODOLOGY

This is a prospective comparative (January 2017-May 2018) study between TAE and THE for >cT1bN1 esophageal carcinoma. After neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT), responders and patients with stable diseases were subjected to surgery. Thoracoscopy in esophagectomy was performed in prone position. Follow-up duration was at least 4 weeks post-discharge.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients of esophageal carcinoma undergoing TAE (n = 18) or THE (n = 15) were included. Common locations of tumor were lower third of esophagus (72.7%) and esophagogastric junction (18.2%). Majority (73.3%) had squamous cell carcinoma. Median interval between NACRT and surgery was 13 weeks. The mean operating time was significantly more with TAE than THE (292.5 vs 207.33 min, p = 0.005). R0 resection rate in TAE was 83.3% compared with 66.7% in THE. There was no difference in the lymph node yield. There was non-significant trend towards lower incidence of major pulmonary complication (66.7% vs 80.0%), cardiac complications (27.8% vs 46.7%), anastomotic leak (27.8% vs 46.7%), recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (16.7% vs 20.0%), and overall major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) (44.4% vs 66.7%) in TAE than THE. The chyle leak was observed more in TAE (16.7%) than THE (6.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

TAE achieved higher R0 resection rate and better short-term morbidity than THE. Enrollment of small number of cases in the study precluded statistical significance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI registration no: CTRI/2018/05/013880) in 14-05-2018.

A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Thoracolaparoscopic vs Open McKeown's Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness and survival benefit of minimally invasive esophagectomy compared to open esophagectomy (OE) remain controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and oncologic outcomes of McKeown's total minimally invasive esophagectomy (tMIE) and McKeown's OE in the treatment of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

METHODS

A series of 917 consecutive patients (306 OE and 611 tMIE) who underwent McKeown's esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in the Department of Thoracic Surgery at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center from January 2011 to December 2016 were evaluated. We performed propensity matching between the tMIE and OE groups on the basis of estimated propensity scores for each patient.

RESULTS

After propensity-matched analysis, 288 patients were selected from each group. The rate of postoperative complications, such as pneumonia, respiratory insufficiency, cervical anastomotic leakage, and wound infection, in the OE group was significantly higher than that in the tMIE group. Intraoperative blood loss and operative duration were not significantly different between the matched groups, whereas the tMIE group had a shorter length of intensive care unit stay and postoperative hospital stay than the OE group. The R0 resection rate and the number of lymph nodes harvested were not significantly different between groups. There was no significant difference in median overall survival between the 2 groups after matching.

CONCLUSIONS

McKeown's tMIE was shown to be a safe and effective procedure with long-term survival comparable to that of OE for the patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.