Video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

A comparative study of the analgesic effects of intravenous ketorolac, paracetamol, and morphine in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: A double-blind, active-controlled, randomized clinical trial

Background:

Opioids are traditionally used as the drug of choice for the management of postoperative pain. However, their use is limited in patients undergoing Video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS), due to their side effects, such as respiratory depression, nausea, and vomiting.

Aim:

In this double-blind active-controlled randomized study, we have compared the analgesic effects of ketorolac and paracetamol to morphine.

Methods:

Patients were randomly chosen from a pool of candidates who were undergoing VATS and were divided into three groups. During the first 24 h postsurgery, patients in the control group received a cumulative dose of morphine 20 mg, while patients in two treatment groups received ketorolac 120 mg and paracetamol 4 g in total. Doses were administered as bolus immediately after surgery and infusion during the first 24 h. Patients' pain severity was evaluated by visual analogue scale rating (VAS) at rest and during coughing episodes.

Results:

The average pain score at recovery time was 2.29 ± 2.13 and 2.26 ± 2.16 for ketorolac and paracetamol, respectively, and it was significantly lower than the morphine group with an average pain score of 3.87 (P = 0.003). Additionally, the VAS score during cough episodes was significantly higher in the control group throughout the study period compared to study groups. Comparison of mean morphine dose utilized as liberation analgesic (in case of patients had VAS >3) between three groups was not significantly different (P = 0.17).

Conclusion:

Our study demonstrates the non-inferiority of ketorolac and paracetamol to morphine in controlling post-VATS pain without causing any significant side effects. We also show that ketorolac and paracetamol are superior to morphine in controlling pain during 2 h postsurgery.

A feasibility study of mediastinoscopic radical esophagectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer from the viewpoint of the dissected mediastinal lymph nodes validated with thoracoscopic procedure: a prospective clinical trial

PURPOSE

A prospective trial evaluated the feasibility and safety of "mediastinoscopic esophagectomy with lymph node dissection" (MELD).

METHODS

Eligible patients had thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, excluding T4, a bulky primary lesion or distant metastasis. Ten patients were enrolled and treated between September 2015 and March 2018. Additionally, to verify the integrity of the mediastinal lymph node dissection, thoracoscopic observation and lymph node dissection were followed. The primary end point was the integrity of mediastinal lymph node dissection. The secondary end points were the short-term outcomes, including mortality and morbidity.

RESULTS

The median number of dissected lymph nodes in the upper mediastinal to cervical region and middle to lower mediastinal region by mediastinoscopy/thoracoscopy was 27/0.5 and 11.5/0, respectively. The median total operation time was 615 min, the median bleeding amount was 476 ml, and the median postoperative hospital stay was 15.5 days. Regarding complications of more than grade III according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, four had sputum excretion difficulty, one had pneumothorax and one had bilateral recurrent nerve palsy, but none required conversion to thoracotomy, and no operative deaths occurred.

CONCLUSION

Although the rate of recurrent nerve palsy still should be reduced, our mediastinoscopic lymphadenectomy technique is closely similar to radical esophagectomy.

Recent advances in thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Technical advances and developments in endoscopic equipment and thoracoscopic surgery have increased the popularity of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). However, there is currently no established scientific evidence supporting the use of MIE as an alternative to open esophagectomy (OE). To date, a number of single-institution studies and several meta-analyses have demonstrated acceptable short-term outcomes of thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, and we recently reported one of the largest propensity score-matched comparison studies between MIE and OE for esophageal cancer, based on a nationwide Japanese database. We found that, in general, MIE had a longer operative time and less blood loss than OE. Moreover, compared to OE, MIE was associated with a lower rate of pulmonary complications such as pneumonia, and both methods had similar mortality rates. Although MIE may reduce the occurrence of postoperative respiratory complications, MIE and OE seem to have comparable short-term outcomes. However, the oncological benefit to patients undergoing MIE remains to be scientifically proven, as no randomized controlled trials have been conducted to verify each method's impact on the long-term survival of cancer patients. An ongoing randomized phase III study (JCOG1409) is expected to determine the impact of each method with regard to short- and long-term outcomes.

Matched-pair comparisons of minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BACKGROUND

Open esophagectomy (OE) with radical lymphadenectomy is known as one of the most invasive digestive surgeries with the high rate of complications. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has developed very rapidly and has formed several available technical approaches. This systematic review and meta-analysis is aiming at how beneficial, and to what extent MIE resection really will be.

METHODS

A systematic literature search will be performed through May 31, 2018 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar for relevant articles published in any language. Randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, and propensity score matched comparative studies will be included. If data are sufficient, subgroup analyses will be conducted in different surgical procedures of MIE.

RESULTS

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

CONCLUSION

This will be the first systematic review and meta-analysis using data of randomized controlled, prospective, and propensity score matched comparative studies to compare the outcomes between MIE and OE updating to May 31, 2018.

Optimized thoracoport design for the thoracoscopic procedure during minimally invasive esophagectomy

Minimally invasive esophagectomy has several benefits as an effective alternative treatment for esophageal cancer. The three-phase esophageal resection may be the most popular approach to esophagectomy. Numerous thoracoport designs are available for the thoracoscopic procedure. The present study aims to contribute a distinctive three-port technique that is designed to minimize surgical trauma and facilitate operation during the thoracoscopic procedure. In this paper, we describe and demonstrate the details of the port design and each operation step. Based on our practical experience, the rational combination of the port design and instrument usage of the three-port technique makes the thorascopic procedure more convenient.

Thoracoscopic and hand assisted laparoscopic esophagectomy with radical lymph node dissection for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in the left lateral decubitus position: a single center retrospective analysis of 654 patients

Background

The rates of thoracoscopic esophagectomy performed in the prone and left lateral decubitus positions are similar in Japan. We retrospectively reviewed short- and long-term outcomes of thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer performed in the left lateral decubitus position.

Methods

Between 1996 and 2015, 654 patients with esophageal cancer underwent thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the left lateral decubitus position. Patients were divided into early (1996–2008) and late groups (2009–2015, with standardization of the procedure and formalized training), and their clinical outcomes reviewed.

Results

The completion rate of thoracoscopic esophagectomy was 99.5%, and the procedure was converted to thoracotomy in three patients, due to hemorrhage. The mean intrathoracic operative time, intrathoracic blood loss, and number of dissected mediastinal lymph nodes were 205.0 min, 127.3 mL, and 24.7, respectively. Postoperative complications included pneumonia (8.5%), anastomotic leakage (7.5%), and recurrent nerve paralysis (3.5%). Postoperative (30d) mortality was 4/654 (0.61%) due to anastomotic leak and pneumonia. The five year overall survival rate was 70%. A comparison of the 289 early- and 365 late-study period cases revealed significant differences in mean intrathoracic blood loss (174.0 vs. 94.2 mL), number of mediastinal lymph nodes dissected (20.0 vs. 28.4), hospital length of stay (33.4 vs. 20.0 days, p < 0.001), and postoperative anastomotic leakage (14% vs. 1.6%, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Standardization of the procedure for thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the left lateral decubitus position, with a standardized clinical pathway for perioperative care led to significant improvements in surgical outcomes.

A novel method for lymphadenectomy along the left laryngeal recurrent nerve during thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Due to limited space in the left upper mediastinum, complete dissection of lymph nodes (LN) along left recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) is difficult. We herein present a novel method for lymphadenectomy along the left RLN during thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the semi-prone position for esophageal carcinoma. The method, suspension the esophagus and push aside trachea, allows en bloc lymphadenectomy along the left RLN from the below aortic arch to the thoracic inlet.

METHODS

Between September 2014 and September 2015, a total of 110 consecutive patients with esophageal carcinoma were treated with thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis in the semi-prone position. Outcomes between those who received surgery with the novel method and conventional surgery were compared.

RESULTS

Fifty patients underwent the novel method and sixty received conventional surgery. The operative field around the left RLN was easier to explore with the novel method. The estimated blood loss was less (23.7±8.2 vs. 34.2±10.3 g, P=0.001), and the number of harvested LNs along the left RLN was greater (6.4±3.2 vs. 4.1±2.8 min, P=0.028) in the novel method group, while the duration of lymphadenectomy along left RLN was longer in the novel method group (28.2±3.9 vs. 20.3±2.8 min, P=0.005). The rate of hoarseness in the novel and conventional groups was 10% and 16.7%, respectively. No significant difference in postoperative morbidity related to the left RLN was noted between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel method during semi-prone esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma is associated with better surgeon ergonomics and operative exposure.

Clinical utility of a novel hybrid position combining the left lateral decubitus and prone positions during thoracoscopic esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

We developed a hybrid of the prone and left lateral decubitus positions for thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) in 2009. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of applying this novel TE position.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 78 patients who underwent TE at our institution between 2005 and 2010. Altogether, 33 patients underwent TE in the left lateral decubitus position (LD-TE) from 2005 to 2008, and 45 underwent TE in the hybrid position (hybrid-TE) from 2009 to 2010. Radical lymphadenectomy along the bilateral recurrent laryngeal nerves was performed in both groups. The thoracic duct was preserved in the LD-TE group and resected in the hybrid-TE group. In the LD-TE group, all thoracic procedures were performed with the patient in the left lateral decubitus position. In the hybrid-TE group, the upper mediastinal procedure was performed with the patient in the left lateral decubitus position, and procedures at the middle and lower mediastinum were performed with the patient in the prone position under CO2 pneumothorax.

RESULTS

Hybrid-TE was associated with increased operating time. The number of harvested mediastinal nodes and the PaO2/FiO2 ratio on postoperative day 1 were both greater in this position. Although vocal cord palsy was observed more frequently in the hybrid-TE group, there was no significant difference in the rate of other complications or in-hospital mortality between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel hybrid position is believed feasible for use during TE. We believe that this position facilitates a more radical mediastinal lymphadenectomy with minimal intraoperative pulmonary damage.

Retrospective study using the propensity score to clarify the oncologic feasibility of thoracoscopic esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to clarify the long-term prognostic impact and oncologic feasibility of thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TSE) in patients with esophageal cancer in comparison with open thoracic esophagectomy (OTE).

METHODS

Patients with esophageal cancer underwent surgically curative esophagectomy without neoadjuvant therapy from January 1991 to December 2008 and were analyzed retrospectively. Of 257 patients, 91 underwent TSE and 166 had OTE. Relations between the long-term prognosis after surgery, the surgical procedure, and clinicopathologic parameters were analyzed statistically. The propensity scores were calculated for all patients through a multiple logistic regression model that was optimized with Akaike's Information Criterion. Using Cox's proportional hazard model with prognostic variables and the propensity scores, we implemented a multivariate analysis for comparing the performance of two surgical methods.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics and the incidence of perioperative morbidity or hospital death were similar for the TSE and OTE groups. Significantly more lymph nodes were dissected in the TSE group than in the OTE group (total p = 0.013; thoracic p = 0.0094; recurrent laryngeal p < 0.0001). The TSE group exhibited a more favorable prognosis after surgery than the OTE group in terms of overall survival (p = 0.011) and disease-specific survival (DSS) (p = 0.0040). Particularly in subgroup analysis of DSS, the TSE group had a favorable prognosis in upper thoracic esophageal cancer (p = 0.0053), invasive cancer (p = 0.046), node-positive cancer (p = 0.020), progressive cancer (p = 0.0052), cancer with lymphatic vessel invasion (p = 0.0019), and cancer without blood vessel invasion (p = 0.0081). In terms of DSS, the TSE group exhibited a more favorable prognosis than the OTE group regardless of the presence or absence of metastasis to lymph nodes around the thoracic (p < 0.0001) or recurrent laryngeal (p < 0.0001) nerves. TSE (p = 0.0430), lymph node metastasis (p = 0.0382), lymphatic invasion (p = 0.0418), and p stage (p = 0.0047) were independent prognostic parameters in the Cox's proportional hazard model with the propensity scores.

CONCLUSIONS

TSE can contribute to prolonged survival after surgery in patients with esophageal cancer by enabling precise thoracic lymph node dissection based on a magnified surgical field. TSE might have maximum oncologic benefit and minimum invasiveness for patients with esophageal cancer.

Minimally invasive surgery for oesophageal cancer

Worldwide an increasing part of oncologic oesophagectomies is performed in a minimally invasive way. Over the past decades multiple reports have addressed the perioperative outcomes and oncologic safety of minimally invasive oesophageal surgery. Although many of these (retrospective) case-control studies identified minimally invasive oesophagectomy as a safe alternative to open techniques, the clear benefit remained subject to debate. Recently, this controversy has partially resolved due to the results of the first randomized controlled trial that compared both techniques. In this trial short-term benefits of minimally invasive oesophagectomy were demonstrated in terms of lower incidence of pulmonary infections, shorter hospital stay and better postoperative quality of life. However, the current lack of long-term data on recurrence rate and overall survival precludes a comprehensive comparison of minimally invasive and open oesophagectomy. Proclaiming minimally invasive oesophagectomy as the standard of care for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer would therefore be a premature decision.

Modified McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a 5-year retrospective study of 142 patients in a single institution

Background

To achieve decreased invasiveness and lower morbidity, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was introduced in 1997 for localized esophageal cancer. The combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy (left neck anastomosis, defined as the McKeown MIE procedure) has been performed since 2007 at our institution. From 2007 to 2011, our institution subsequently evolved as a high-volume MIE center in China. We aim to share our experience with MIE, and have evaluated the outcomes of 142 patients.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 142 consecutive patients who had presented with esophageal cancer undergoing McKeown MIE from July 2007 to December 2011. The procedure, surgical outcomes, disease-free and overall survival of these cases were assessed.

Results

The average total procedure time was 270.5±28.1 min. The median operation time for thoracoscopy was 81.5±14.6 min and for laparoscopy was 63.8±9.1 min. The average blood loss associated with thoracoscopy was 123.8±39.2 ml, and for laparoscopic procedures was 49.9±14.3 ml. The median number of lymph nodes retrieved was 22.8. The 30 day mortality rate was 0.7%. Major surgical complications occurred in 24.6% and major non-surgical complications occurred in 18.3% of these patients. The median DFS and OS were 36.0±2.6 months and 43.0±3.4 months respectively.

Conclusions

Surgical and oncological outcomes following McKeown MIE for esophageal cancer were acceptable and comparable with those of open-McKeown esophagectomy. The procedure was both feasible and safe – properties that can be consolidated by experience.

Minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancer: review of the literature and institutional experience

BACKGROUND

Esophageal cancer represents a major public health problem in the world. Several minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) techniques have been described and represent a safe alternative for the surgical management of esophageal cancer in selected centers with high volume and surgeons experienced in minimally invasive procedures.

METHODS

The authors reviewed the most recent and largest studies published in the medical literature that reported the outcomes for MIE techniques.

RESULTS

In larger series, MIE has proven to be equivalent in postoperative morbidity and mortality to the open esophagectomy. However, MIE has been associated with less blood loss, reduced postoperative pain, decreased time in the intensive care unit, and shortened length of hospital stay compared with the conventional open approaches. Despite limited data, no significant difference in survival stage for stage has been observed between open esophagectomy and MIE.

CONCLUSIONS

The myriad of MIE techniques complicates the debate for defining the optimal surgical approach for the treatment of esophageal cancer. Randomized controlled trials comparing MIE with conventional open esophagectomy are needed to clarify the ideal procedure with the lowest postoperative morbidity, best quality of life after surgery, and long-term survival.

Current status and future perspectives on minimally invasive esophagectomy

Esophageal cancer has one of the highest malignant potentials of any type of tumor. The 3-field lymph node dissection is the standard procedure in Japan for surgically curable esophageal cancer in the middle or upper thoracic esophagus. Minimally invasive esophagectomy is being increasingly performed in many countries, and several studies report its feasibility and curability; further, the magnifying effect of the thoracoscope is another distinct advantage. However, few studies have reported that minimally invasive esophagectomy is more beneficial than open esophagectomy. A recent meta-analysis revealed that minimally invasive esophagectomy reduces blood loss, respiratory complications, the total morbidity rate, and hospitalization duration. A randomized study reported that the pulmonary infection rate, pain score, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization duration, and postoperative 6-week quality of life were significantly better with the minimally invasive procedure than with other procedures. In the future, sentinel lymph node mapping might play a significant role by obtaining individualized information to customize the surgical procedure for individual patients' specific needs.

Current status of minimally invasive esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer

Technical advancements and development of endoscopic equipment in thoracoscopic surgery have resulted in increase in the popularity of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). However, advantages with regard to short-term outcome and oncological feasibility of MIE have not been adequately established. To date, a number of single-institution studies and several meta-analyses have demonstrated acceptable short-term outcomes of thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, and the outcomes are comparable to those of conventional open esophagectomy (OE). A study group recently reported the results of the first multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared MIE and OE. The incidence of pulmonary infection after surgery was markedly lower in the MIE group than in the OE group. Additional benefits of MIE included less operative blood loss, better postoperative patients' quality of life, and shorter hospital stay. However, the oncological benefit to patients undergoing MIE has not been scientifically proven because there have been no RCTs to verify the equivalency in long-term survival of patients undergoing MIE compared with that of patients undergoing OE. If future prospective studies indicate oncological benefits, MIE could truly become the standard care for patients with esophageal cancer.

Clinical evaluation of the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery in esophageal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Open thoracotomy laparotomy with extended dissection for esophageal cancer is associated with problems such as delayed postoperative recovery and decreased quality of life. In contrast, in minimally invasive surgery, these problems can be improved. In the present study, we investigated the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery in esophageal cancer.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we evaluated esophagectomy performed by the same surgeon in 98 patients with thoracic esophageal cancer. Open surgery was performed in 30 patients (open group), and minimally invasive surgery was performed in 68 patients (MIS group). We compared the invasiveness and radical cure of cancer by minimally invasive surgery with that of open surgery.

RESULTS

Comparison between the open and MIS groups showed that intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative transfused blood volume, and surgical site infection rates were significantly lower in the MIS group. The duration of postoperative endotracheal intubation and hospital stay were significantly shorter in the MIS group. The histopathologic type was squamous cell carcinoma in 93.3% in the open group and 92.6% in the MIS group. The respective 3-year survival rates were 36.7% and 71.5%, and the respective 5-year survival rates were 26.7% and 61.5%.

CONCLUSION

Based on a historical control study at a single institution, we are unable to conclude that minimally invasive surgery is superior to open surgery. However, our results indicate that minimally invasive surgery is feasible as a surgical procedure in esophageal cancer.

Thoracoscopic esophagectomy while in a prone position for esophageal cancer: a preceding anterior approach method

BACKGROUND

In 2009, the rate of thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer was about 20% in Japan. This low rate may be due to the difficulty in maintaining a good surgical field and the meticulous procedures that are required. The purpose of this study was to establish and evaluate a new procedure for performing a thoracoscopic esophagectomy while the patient is in a prone position using a preceding anterior approach to make the esophagectomy easier to perform.

METHODS

We have performed thoracoscopic esophagectomy using our new procedure in 60 patients with esophageal cancer. Each patient was placed in a prone position and five trocars were inserted; only the left lung was ventilated and a pneumothorax was maintained. The esophagus was mobilized from the anterior structure during the first step and from the posterior structure during the second step. The lymph nodes around the esophagus were also dissected anteriorly and posteriorly. The patients were sequentially divided into two groups and their clinical outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean operative time for the thoracoscopic procedure for the latter 30 cases (203 min) was shorter than that for the former 30 cases (260 min) (P = 0.001). Among the 52 cases without pleural adhesion, the mean blood loss in the latter 26 cases (18 mL) was also less than that in the former 26 cases (40 mL) (P = 0.027). There were no conversions to a thoracotomy and no operative deaths in this series. Postoperative complications related to the thoracoscopic procedure occurred in 8 cases (27%) in the former group and in 4 cases (13%) in the latter group.

CONCLUSIONS

Thoracoscopic esophagectomy with the patient in the prone position using a preceding anterior approach is a safe and feasible procedure. As experience performing the procedure increases, the performance of the procedure stabilizes. This method seems to make the esophagectomy easier to perform.

Robot-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy: a 3-year single-center experience

Minimally invasive esophagectomy has emerged as an important procedure for disease management in esophageal cancer (EC) with clear margin status, less morbidity, and shorter hospital stays compared with open procedures. The experience with transhiatal approach robotic esophagectomy (RE) for dissection of thoracic esophagus and associated morbidity is described here. Between March 2007 and November 2010, 40 patients with resectable esophageal indications underwent transhiatal RE at the institute. Clinical data for all patients were collected prospectively. Of 40 patients undergoing RE, one patient had an extensive benign stricture, one had high-grade dysplasia, and 38 had EC. Five patients were converted from robotic to open. Median operative time and estimated blood loss were 311 minutes and 97.2 mL, respectively. Median intensive care unit stay was 1 day (range, 0-16), and median length of hospital stay was 9 days (range, 6-36). Postoperative complications frequently observed were anastomotic stricture (n= 27), recurrent laryngeal nerve paresis (n= 14), anastomotic leak (n= 10), pneumonia (n= 8), and pleural effusion (n= 18). Incidence rates of laryngeal nerve paresis (35%) and leak rate (25%) were somewhat higher in comparison with that reported in literature. However, all vocal cord injuries were temporary, and all leaks healed following opening of the cervical incision and drainage. None of the patients died in the hospital, and 30-day mortality was 2.5% (1/40). Median number of lymph nodes removed was 20 (range, 3-38). In 33 patients with known lymph node locations, median of four (range, 0-12) nodes was obtained from the mediastinum, and median of 15 (range, 1-26) was obtained from the abdomen. R0 resection was achieved in 94.7% of patients. At the end of the follow-up period, 25 patients were alive, 13 were deceased, and 2 patients were lost to follow-up. For patients with EC, median disease-free survival was 20 months (range, 3-45). Transhiatal RE, by experience, is a feasible albeit evolving oncologic operation with low hospital mortality. The benefits include minimally invasive mediastinal dissection without thoracotomy or thoracoscopy. A reasonable operative time with minimal blood loss and postoperative morbidity can be achieved, in spite of the technically demanding nature of the procedure. Broader use of this technology in a setting of high-volume comprehensive surgical programs will almost certainly reduce the complication rates. Robotic tanshiatal esophagectomy with the elimination of a thoracic approach should be considered an option for the appropriate patient population in a comprehensive esophageal program.

Comparison of esophagectomy with and without thoracotomy in a low-resource tertiary care center in a developing country

Esophageal cancer surgery is traditionally performed by a number of open surgical approaches. Open approaches require thoracotomy and laparotomy. Developments in instrumentation and optics have allowed the use of minimally invasive approaches to esophageal cancer, which had been traditionally managed by open operation. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) avoids thoracotomy and laparotomy and results in quicker return to normal functions and less morbidity. In this prospective study, we compared the immediate surgical and oncologic outcomes of patients who have undergone MIS with those who have had open surgery. From November 1, 2003 to March 30, 2006, 62 cases of carcinoma esophagus were operated in Surgical unit 3 (MIS unit) in the institute. Out of the 62 patients, 34 (54.8%) underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), and the remaining 28 patients (45.2%) underwent open surgery. Both operations were done by the same team of surgeons. The groups were compared in terms of perioperative outcomes, morbidity, mortality, and adequacy of oncologic excision. The average duration for MIS was 312.35 min (60-480 min), which was more than that of open group surgery whose average duration was 261.96 min (60-360 min). This difference was found to be not significant (P < 0.110). The average blood loss was 275.74 mL (200-500 mL) in minimally invasive group compared with 312.50 (200-500 mL) in open group (P-value 0.33). Four patients (11.76%) in MIS group had been converted to open surgery. Average duration of hospitalization was 11.9 (4-24) days in MIS group compared with 12.19 (5-24) days in open group (P-value 0.282). Nine (26.47%) patients in MIS group had developed major or minor morbidity. Similarly, eight (28.57%) patients in open group had morbidity. One patient each expired in each group. The morbidity and mortality rates were not statistically significant. There were four leaks (11.76%) in MIS group and three leaks (10.71%) in open group (P-value 0.85). Regarding the extent of nodal clearance, an average number of 9.5 (0-19) nodes were removed in MIS group compared with an average of 7.26 (0-12) nodes in open group (P-value 0.05). Better visibility and magnification enabled more number of lymph nodes to be removed in MIS group. MIE is oncologically safe compared with open surgery. It has almost similar postoperative course, morbidity pattern, and duration of hospital stay as open surgery. Increased duration of procedure compared with open surgery is a disadvantage of MIS, especially in the early part of learning curve.

OrVil™-assisted anastomosis in laparoscopic upper gastrointestinal surgery: friend of the laparoscopic surgeon

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of minimally invasive oesophagogastrectomies (MIOG) are being performed. However, the complexity of the surgical skills required and the steep learning curve have thus far confined the minimally invasive approach to selected tertiary centres. The oesophagogastric and the oesophagojejunal anastomosis can be challenging and often time-consuming. The recently developed transorally inserted anvil (OrVil(™)) is a technique aimed to simplify the anastomotic procedure. The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of OrVil(™)-assisted anastomosis during laparoscopic surgery in a tertiary upper-GI cancer centre.

METHODS

From July 2008 to July 2010, 53 consecutive patients underwent MIOG for cancer performed by one surgeon at our institution. Thirty patients underwent laparoscopic Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy (ILO) and 23 patients underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy. Of the latter group, 13 had a total gastrectomy (TG) and 10 had a subtotal gastrectomy (SG). The gastrointestinal anastomosis was checked with intraoperative endoscopy in all cases.

RESULTS

There were three in-hospital deaths. Median hospital stay was 14 days for oesophagectomies and 11 days for gastrectomies. There were three anastomotic leaks (5.6%), all in the oesophageal group, successfully treated conservatively. Two patients needed conversion to open surgery (3.7%), 3 patients (5.6%) required re-exploration (for bleeding, infected haematoma, and diaphragmatic hernia), and 18 patients (34%) had respiratory complications (pneumonia, pleural effusions, respiratory failure). Four patients developed anastomotic stricture requiring endoscopic balloon dilatation. The average number of lymph nodes harvested was 22 (range = 11-39) and 26 (range = 5-78) for oesophagectomies and gastrectomies, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The principles of a good anastomosis are good vascular supply, must be tension-free, and the use of a high-quality surgical technique. The use of the OrVil(™) in laparoscopic upper-gastrointestinal surgery is safe and does not have an increased complication rate. It is quicker and easier compared to the traditional purse-string technique and it may help to expand the adoption of MIOG surgery.

Thoracoscopic resection for esophageal cancer: A review of literature

Esophageal resection remains the only curative option in high grade dysplasia of the Barrett esophagus and non metastasized esophageal cancer. In addition, it may also be an adequate treatment in selected cases of benign disease. A wide variety of minimally invasive procedures have become available in esophageal surgery. Aim of the present review article is to evaluate minimally invasive procedures for esophageal resection, especially the approach performed through right thoracoscopy.

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.

Comparison of open three-field and minimally-invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

The aim was to compare the early outcomes between thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy (TLE) and open three-field esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. We retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 96 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent TLE, and 78 patients who underwent open three-field esophagectomy from March 2008 to September 2010. All the operations were successful. There was no significant difference between TLE and open three-field esophagectomy with regard to the number of lymph nodes procured (17.75±5.56 vs. 18.03±6.20, P>0.05), complications (32.3% vs. 46.2%, P>0.05), and operative mortality (2.1% vs. 3.8%, P>0.05). However, hospital stay was significantly shorter in the TLE group than the open esophagectomy group (12.64±8.82 vs. 17.53±6.40 days, P<0.01), and the TLE group had significantly less blood loss (346.68±41.13 vs. 519.26±47.74 ml, P<0.01). This showed that TLE for esophageal cancer offers results as good as or better than those with open three-field esophagectomy.

Review of open and minimal access approaches to oesophagectomy for cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches to oesophagectomy are being used increasingly, but there remain concerns regarding safety and oncological acceptability. This study reviewed the outcomes of totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO; 41 patients), hybrid procedures (partially minimally invasive; 34) and open oesophagectomy (46) for oesophageal cancer from a single unit.

METHODS

Demographic and clinical data were entered into a prospective database. MIO was thoracoscopic-laparoscopic-cervical anastomosis, hybrid surgery was thoracoscopic-laparotomy or laparoscopic gastric mobilization-thoracotomy, and open resections were left thoracoabdominal (LTA), Ivor Lewis (IL) or transhiatal oesophagectomy (THO).

RESULTS

There were 118 resections for carcinoma (23 squamous cell carcinoma, 95 adenocarcinoma) and three for high-grade dysplasia. MIO took longer than open surgery (median 6·5 h versus 4·8 h for THO, 4·7 h for IL and LTA). MIO required less epidural time (P < 0·001 versus IL and LTA, P = 0·009 versus thorascopic hybrid, P = 0·014 versus laparoscopic IL). Despite a shorter duration of single-lung ventilation with MIO compared with IL and LTA (median 90 versus 150 min; P = 0·013), respiratory complication rates and duration of hospital stay were similar. There were seven anastomotic leaks after MIO, four after hybrid procedures and one following open surgery. Mortality rates were 2, 6 and 2 per cent respectively. Lymph node harvests were similar between all groups, as were rates of complete (R0) resection in patients with locally advanced tumours.

CONCLUSION

MIO is technically feasible. It does not reduce pulmonary complications or length of stay. Oncological outcomes appear equivalent.

Minimally invasive surgery and cancer: controversies part 1

Perhaps there is no more important issue in the care of surgical patients than the appropriate use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for patients with cancer. Important advances in surgical technique have an impact on early perioperative morbidity, length of hospital stay, pain management, and quality of life issues, as clearly proved with MIS. However, for oncology patients, historically, the most important clinical questions have been answered in the context of prospective randomized trials. Important considerations for MIS and cancer have been addressed, such as what are the important immunologic consequences of MIS versus open surgery and what is the role of laparoscopy in the staging of gastrointestinal cancers? This review article discusses many of the key controversies in the minimally invasive treatment of cancer using the pro-con debate format.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy: an overview

Minimally invasive approaches to esophageal resection have been shown to be feasible and safe, with outcomes similar to open esophagectomy. There are no controlled trials comparing the outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with open techniques, just a few comparative studies and many single institution series from which assessment of MIE and its present role have been made. The reported improvements from MIE approaches include reduced blood loss, time in intensive care and time in hospital. In comparative studies there is no clear reduction in respiratory complications, although larger series suggest there may be a benefit from MIE. Although MIE approaches report less lymph node retrieval compared with open extended lymphadenectomy, MIE cancer outcomes are comparable with open surgery. MIE will be a major component of the future esophageal surgeons' armamentarium, but should continue to be carefully assessed. There is a role for multicentered studies to prospectively audit outcomes. Large numbers of patients would be required to perform randomized trials of MIE versus open resection.

Esophagectomy without mortality: what can surgeons do?

INTRODUCTION

Surgical resection remains the mainstay treatment for patients with localized esophageal cancer. It is, however, a complex procedure. Mortality rate used to be high, but in recent years, death rate has been reduced to below 5% in specialized centers.

METHODS

Outcome of esophagectomy can be improved by paying attention to (1) appropriate patient section, (2) choice of surgical techniques and their execution, and (3) optimizing perioperative care. A volume-outcome relationship is also evident. Surgeons can perform esophagectomy without mortality, but a multi-disciplinary team management is essential to achieve this goal.

Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Open esophagectomy for cancer is a major oncological procedure, associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Recently, thoracoscopic procedures have offered a potentially advantageous alternative because of less operative trauma compared with thoracotomy. The aim of this study was to utilize meta-analysis to compare outcomes of open esophagectomy with those of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE).

METHODS

Literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases for comparative studies assessing different techniques of esophagectomy. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed. Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day mortality and anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes included operative outcomes, other postoperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes in terms of lymph nodes retrieved.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were included in the analysis. Studies included a total of 672 patients for MIE and HMIE, and 612 for open esophagectomy. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality; however, MIE had lower blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and reduced total morbidity and respiratory complications. For all other outcomes, there was no significant difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is a safe alternative to the open technique. Patients undergoing MIE may benefit from shorter hospital stay, and lower respiratory complications and total morbidity compared with open esophagectomy. Multicenter, prospective large randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these findings in order to base practice on sound clinical evidence.

Minimally invasive oesophageal resection for distal oesophageal cancer: A review of the literature

Oesophagus resection is adequate treatment for some benign oesophageal diseases, especially caustic and peptic stenosis and end-stage motility dysfunction. However, the most frequent indications for oesophageal resection are the high-grade dysplasia of Barrett oesophagus and non-metastasized oesophageal cancer. Different procedures have been developed for performing oesophageal resection given the 5-year survival rate of only 18% among patients operated on. A disadvantage of the conventional approach is the high morbidity rate, especially with pulmonary complications. Minimally invasive oesophageal resections, which were first performed in 1991, may reduce this important morbidity and preserve the oncologic outcome. The first reports of morbidity and respiratory complications with this approach were disappointing and it seemed likely that the procedure would have to be abandoned. However, in the past 5 years, Japanese groups and the group of Luketich in Pittsburgh have given these techniques an important impetus. The outcomes of the new series are different from those in the beginning period, and are leading to an enormous expansion worldwide. Important factors behind the change are standardization of the operative technique, the experience of many surgeons with more advanced laparoscopic procedures, important improvements in instruments for dissection and division of tissues, a better technique in use of anaesthesia, and a better selection of patients for operation. Two minimally invasive techniques are being perfected: the three-stage operation by right thoracoscopy and laparoscopy, and the transhiatal laparoscopic approach. The former may be applied successfully for any tumour in the oesophagus, whereas the latter seems ideal for distal oesophageal and oesophagogastric junction tumours. This review article discusses all these aspects, giving special attention to indications and operative technique.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy: lessons learned from 104 operations

OBJECTIVES

To review the outcomes of 104 consecutive minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) procedures for the treatment of benign and malignant esophageal disease.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Although minimally invasive surgical approaches to esophagectomy have been reported since 1992, MIE is still considered investigational at most institutions.

METHODS

This prospective study evaluates 104 MIE procedures performed between August 1998 and September 2007. Main outcome measures include operative techniques, operative times, blood loss, length of stay, conversion rates, morbidities, and mortalities.

RESULTS

Indications for surgery were esophageal cancer (n = 80), Barrett esophagus with high-grade dysplasia (n = 6), recalcitrant stricture (n = 8), gastrointestinal stromal tumor (n = 3), and gastric cardia cancer (n = 7). Surgical approaches included thoracoscopic/laparoscopic esophagectomy with a cervical anastomosis (n = 47), minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (n = 51), laparoscopic hand-assisted blunt transhiatal esophagectomy (n = 5), and laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (n = 1). There were 77 males. The mean age was 65 years. Three patients (2.9%) required conversion to a laparotomy. The median ICU and hospital stays were 2 and 8 days, respectively. Major complications occurred in 12.5% of patients and minor complications in 15.4% of patients. The incidence of leak was 9.6% and of anastomotic stricture was 26%. The 30-day mortality was 1.9% with an in-hospital mortality of 2.9%. The mean number of lymph nodes retrieved was 13.8.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is feasible with a low conversion rate, acceptable morbidity, and low mortality. Our preferred operative approach is the laparoscopic\thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis resection, which provides a tension-free intrathoracic anastomosis.

The port site recurrence after a thoracoscopic and video-assisted esophagectomy for advanced esophageal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Thoracoscopic or video-assisted thoracic esophagectomies have been performed for the last 10 years. Nevertheless, some reports have showed a risk of dissemination with endoscopic or video-assisted surgery for malignant disease. This institute experienced three cases of port site recurrence after a thoracoscopic esophagectomy for advanced esophageal cancer. Following those cases, induction chemo-radiation therapy was performed for patient with advanced esophageal cancer before thoracoscopic or video-assisted esophagectomy. Since introducing induction chemo-radiation therapy, no patients have experienced port site recurrence after a thoracoscopic or video-assisted esophagectomy for advanced esophageal cancer. In this study, the two patients groups are compared before and after the introduction of induction chemo-radiation therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between November 1995 and December 2005, thoracoscopic and video-assisted esophagectomies were performed on 112 (72.7%) patients out of 154 who underwent a surgical resection for thoracic and abdominal esophageal cancer. The histologic type of cancer was squamous cell carcinoma in 109 (97.4%) patients and adenocarcinoma in 3 (2.6%). Ninety-one patients were men and 21 were women. The tumor was located in the upper thoracic esophagus in 22 (19.6%) patients, the middle thoracic esophagus in 49 (43.8%), the lower thoracic esophagus in 34 (30.4%), and the abdominal esophagus in 7 (6.2%).

RESULTS

Before December 1999, port site recurrence occurred in three cases of those of 29 patients with clinical T2-T4 esophageal cancer from 3 to 6 months after surgery, and pleural dissemination was observed in two of those patients. Since January 2000, induction chemo-radiation therapy (low-dose fluorouracil and platinum + 40 Gy radiation) has been performed to 31 patients with clinical T2-T4 disease, and port site recurrence has not occurred in any patients who received trimodality therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

We think that the trend toward less port site recurrences with induction therapy should be examined in future studies of video-assisted thoracic surgery esophagectomy to confirm our findings.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy: a comparative study of transhiatal laparoscopic approach versus laparoscopic right transthoracic esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

The development of minimally invasive surgery gave birth to an interest in a mini-invasive approach to esophageal cancer; however, it is still considered to be one of the most complex gastrointestinal surgical operations, and many questions still remain unanswered, regarding the oncologic results of a mini-invasive approach in long-term follow-ups. Here, the authors report on the short-term and long-term results of a series of laparoscopic esophagectomies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2002 to March 2006, 22 nonrandomized patients were recruited to undergo an esophagectomy for neoplastic disease. The esophagectomy and esophagogastroplasty were carried out using the laparoscopic transhiatal technique in 9 patients; whereas, a combined laparoscopic and right-transthoracic incision was performed in the other 13 patients.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 21+/-3.23 months (mean+/-SD); range, 2 to 46 months. The overall survival rate resulted 84.0% at 12 months, 61.3% at 24 months, and 51.0% at 36 months. The proportions of cumulative survival showed significant differences when the following variables were considered: site of neoplasm (lower esophagus), American Society of Anesthesiologists 2, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type of surgical procedure, and inclusion in neoadjuvant protocol and staging. Recurrence rates were 3 (25%) in the radio-chemotherapy-treated group, and 5 (50%) in the primary surgery group (P=n.s.).

CONCLUSIONS

The two-year survival rates (61.3%) recorded in our series are comparable with those reported in other series of both laparoscopic and open surgeries. The logical conclusion was that a less invasive procedure did not imply a less curative one.

Video-assisted esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Video-assisted surgery for esophageal cancer is an advanced surgical technique. It has been developed on the basis of the concept of minimally invasive surgery. Given that there are several options regarding the operative procedures for thoracic esophageal cancer, several laparoscopic approaches have been proposed. The first video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy through a right thoracoscopic approach and the first transhiatal esophagectomy were reported in the early 1990s. A mediastinoscope-assisted esophagectomy has also been reported as a substitute for a blunt dissection of the esophagus. Moreover, a video-assisted Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy by right thoracotomy with intrathoracic anastomosis has also been performed. Furthermore, laparoscopic gastric mobilization and gastroplasty are also widely accepted substitutions for open laparotomy. This article reviews the literature on the laparoscopic approaches for esophageal cancer.

Robotically assisted laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy is a technically demanding operation with high procedure-related morbidity and mortality rates. Minimally invasive techniques were introduced in the late 1980s in an effort to decrease the invasiveness of the procedure. Data concerning the use of robotic systems for esophageal cancer are scarce in the literature. The goal of this report is to describe the authors' early experience using robotically assisted technology to perform transhiatal esophagectomy (RATE).

METHODS

Between September 2001 and May 2004, 18 patients underwent RATE at the authors' institution. A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed. Gender, age, postoperative diagnosis, operative time, conversion rate, blood loss, hospital stay, length of the follow-up period, and complications were assessed.

RESULTS

At the authors' institution, 18 patients underwent RATE, including 16 men (89%), with a mean age of 54 years (range, 41-73 years). The RATE procedure was completed for all 18 patients (100%). The mean operative time was 267 +/- 71 min, and estimated blood loss was 54 ml (range, 10-150 ml). The mean intensive care unit stay was 1.8 days (range, 1-5 days), and the mean hospital stay was 10 days (range, 4-38 days). A total of 12 perioperative complications occurred for 9 patients, including 6 anastomotic leaks, 1 thoracic duct injury, 1 vocal cord paralysis, 1 pleural effusion, and 2 atrial fibrillations. Anastomotic stricture was observed in six patients. There were no perioperative deaths. Pathologic examination of the surgical specimen yielded an average of 14 lymph nodes per patient (range, 7-27). During the mean follow-up period of 22 +/- 8 months, 2 patients died, 2 were lost to follow-up evaluation, 3 had recurrence, and 11 were disease free.

CONCLUSION

The current study shows that RATE, with its decreased blood loss, minimal cardiopulmonary complications, and no hospital mortality, represents a safe and effective alternative for the treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma.

The current management of esophageal cancer

The divergence in epidemiology between the East and West has made interpretation of data in the literature more difficult and has affected the choice of the most appropriate surgical technique and treatment strategies. The management of esophageal cancer certainly has evolved, and many more options are available. Stage-directed strategies and individualization of treatment are important considerations. Surgeons play a central role in directing management of this disease by advising how best to integrate surgical therapy with nonoperative programs. Surgeons should aim at improving their results further, so that the best results of surgery are compared with seemingly "safer" nonsurgical therapies. Low death rates have been achieved in specialized centers, but there still is much room for improvement in morbidity rates. Even with the best surgical resection and chemoradiation therapy, distant failure remains a barrier to improved survival rates. Therapeutic improvements will require more effective systemic drugs and a better ability to predict responders with precision. Management strategies will evolve further, with improvements in molecular techniques, imaging methods, and introduction of more novel tumoricidal agents. The challenge for the future is to test strategies critically in a scientific, unbiased manner and to explore other innovative treatments.

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is finding an ever-increasing role in the diagnosis and treatment of a wide range of thoracic disorders that previously required sternotomy or open thoracotomy. The potential advantages of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery include less postoperative pain, fewer operative complications, shortened hospital stay and reduced costs. The following review examines the surgical and anesthetic considerations of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, with an emphasis on recently published articles.

Comparison of the outcomes between open and minimally invasive esophagectomy

OBJECTIVE

We report patient outcomes from esophageal resection with respect to morbidity and cancer survival comparing open thoracotomy and laparotomy (Open), with a thoracoscopic/laparotomy approach (Thoracoscopic-Assisted) and a total thoracoscopic/laparoscopic approach (Total MIE).

METHODS

From a prospective database of all patients managed with cancer of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction, patients who had a resection using one of three techniques were analyzed to assess postoperative variables, adequacy of cancer clearance, and survival.

RESULTS

The number of patients for each procedure was as follows: Open, 114; Thoracoscopic-Assisted, 309; and Total MIE, 23. The groups were comparable with respect to preoperative variables. The differences in the postoperative variables were: less median blood loss in the Thoracoscopic-Assisted (400 mL) and Total MIE (300 mL) groups versus Open (600 mL); longer time for Total MIE (330 minutes) versus Thoracoscopic-Assisted (285 minutes) and Open (300 minutes); longer median time in hospital for Open (14 days) versus Thoracoscopic-Assisted (13 days), Total MIE (11 days) and less stricture formation in the Open (6.1%) versus Thoracoscopic-Assisted (21.6%), Total MIE (36%). There were no differences in lymph node retrieval for each of the approaches. Open had more stage III patients (65.8%) versus Thoracoscopic-Assisted (34.4%), Total MIE (52.1%). There was no difference in survival when the groups were compared stage for stage for overall median or 3-year survival.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive techniques to resect the esophagus in patients with cancer were confirmed to be safe and comparable to an open approach with respect to postoperative recovery and cancer survival.

Totally laparoscopic trans-hiatal gastroesophagectomy for benign diseases of the esophago-gastric junction

AIM: To prospectively present our initial experience with totally laparoscopic transhiatal esophagogastrectomies for benign diseases of the cardia and distal esophagus.

METHODS: Laparoscopic gastric mobilization and tubularization combined with transhiatal esophageal dissection and intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis accomplished by a circular stapler was done in 3 patients. There were 2 females and 1 male patient with a mean age of 73 ± 5 years.

RESULTS: Two patients were operated on due to benign stromal tumor of the cardia and one patient had severe oesophageal peptic stenosis. Mean blood loss was 47 ± 15 mL and mean operating time was 130 ± 10 min. There were no cases that required conversion to laparotomy. All patients were extubated immediately after surgery. Soft diet intake and ambulation times were 5.1 ± 0.4 d and 2.6 ± 0.6 d, respectively. There were no intraoperative and postoperative complications and there were no perioperative deaths. The average length of hospital stay was 9.3 ± 3 d. All procedures were curative and all resected margins were tumor free. The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was 18 ± 8.

CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic transhiatal esophago-gastrectomy for benign lesions has good effects and proves feasible and safe.

Risk analysis in resection of thoracic esophageal cancer in the era of endoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical outcomes after thoracoscopic esophagectomy were compared with those after open esophagectomy, and the prognostic values of factors potentially related to mortality and morbidity were evaluated.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of 153 patients who underwent esophagectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer. The thoracic surgical procedures were categorized into the following three groups: esophagectomy under standard thoracotomy (n = 37), assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy with utility minithoracotomy (n = 38), and complete thoracoscopic esophagectomy (n = 78). Mortality and morbidity were compared among the three groups. Then, in a separate multivariate analysis, data on 14 potentially prognostic variables were extracted, and the relation to postoperative outcomes was examined.

RESULTS

Respiratory complications were the most frequent complications in all three groups, and their rate of occurrence was not significantly among the three groups. The 30-day and in-hospital mortality rates were significantly higher in the open group than in the other groups. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that patient age, sex, induction chemoradiation, and forced expiratory volume were independently significant contributing factors for respiratory complications, while the serum total protein concentration and open esophagectomy were significant factors for in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrated that respiratory complications are still the main cause of operative morbidity when using the thoracoscopic esophagectomy protocol and that use of the thoracoscopic procedure does not decrease the risk of respiratory complications. The use of the thoracoscopic procedure improved postoperative in-hospital mortality. The advantages of thoracoscopic esophagectomy should be investigated further. At this point in time, however, thoracoscopic esophagectomy can be considered a feasible, safe, and advantageous surgical option.

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Early Experience and Outcomes

Minimally invasive esophageal surgery has the potential to improve mortality, hospital stay, and functional outcomes when compared with open methods. Although technically complex, combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic esophageal resection is feasible. A case series of 20 patients who underwent minimally invasive total esophagectomy is presented. This study was a review of a prospective database. The purpose was to evaluate early results with laparoscopic total esophagectomy for benign and malignant disease. Between January 2003 and November 2005, 20 patients underwent minimally invasive esophageal surgery. All operations were performed by the same two surgeons. Age, gender, indications for surgery, pathologic stage, operative time, blood loss, transfusion requirements, intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, postoperative complications, and mortality were recorded. Diet progression, dysphagia, and need for stricture management were also recorded. Of the 20 minimally invasive total esophagectomies performed, 18 (90%) were completed successfully. The average age of the patients was 53 years. Indications for surgery were malignancy (n = 13), carcinoma in situ in the setting of Barrett's esophagus (n = 2), and benign stricture (n = 3). The average operating time was 467 minutes (range 346–580 min). Median blood loss was 350 mL (range 150–500 mL). The median intensive care unit stay was 2 days, and the median hospital length of stay was 12 days. Pathology revealed that 7 per cent of patients had stage I disease, 27 per cent of patients had stage II disease, and 53 per cent of patients had stage III disease. There was a single mortality (5%), a cervical leak in two patients (10%), a gastric tip necrosis in one patient (5%), and tracheoesophageal fistula in one patient (5%). Major complications occurred in eight patients (40%) and minor complications in nine (50%). Thirteen (72%) patients were discharged on enteral tube feeds to supplement caloric intake. The application of minimally invasive techniques in the arena of esophageal surgery continues to evolve. This approach has the potential to improve mortality, hospital stay, and other outcomes when compared with open methods. Although technically complex, laparoscopic total esophagectomy is feasible.