Simple Technique of Circular Stapled Anastomosis in Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy

Comparative analysis of manual vs. mechanical suturing techniques in esophagectomy: A propensity score‑matched study of long‑term outcomes

Esophageal cancer, particularly esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), is a major health concern worldwide, particularly in China. Surgical resection is still considered the primary curative treatment for this disease. However, the effect of different surgical methods-traditional hand-sewn anastomosis and modern mechanical anastomosis-remains controversial. A retrospective study was thus performed to elucidate how these two techniques affected the clinical prognosis of patients. Data were retrospectively collected from the comprehensive Esophageal Cancer Case Management Database of Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute (Chengdu, China), covering the period from 2010 to 2017. The cohort consisted of patients who underwent esophagectomy for ESCC, divided into two groups based on the suturing technique used: Manual suturing (MS) and mechanical suturing (MeS). A total of four causal inference methods for retrospective studies, namely inverse probability of treatment weighting, standardized mortality ratio weighting, overlap weighting and propensity score matching analysis, were used to minimize potential selection bias. The primary outcome evaluated was overall survival (OS), allowing for a direct comparison of the long-term efficacy of the two suturing methods. In a retrospective analysis of 2,510 patients undergoing esophagectomy, significant differences in OS were observed between the MeS group and the MS group (hazard ratio: 0.84; 95% confidence interval: 0.75-0.95; P=0.004). However, after matching or weighting based on causal inference analyses, no significant differences in survival outcomes between groups were obtained. The equivalence in outcomes suggests that either suturing method may be equally viable in clinical practice, offering flexibility in surgical decision-making without compromising OS.

Long-Term Quality of Life and Survivorship Priorities in Esophageal Cancer Patients: A Survey-Based Assessment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study examines the long-term quality of life (QOL) and priorities of survivors who underwent management for esophageal cancer (EC).

METHODS

We cross-sectionally surveyed EC patients through online support groups to assess the relative importance of their overall survival, experience, costs of care, and QOL. Kendall's co-efficient of Concordance (W) was utilized to assess agreement among respondents.

RESULTS

Among 100 respondents (age 57.2 ± 10.4 years, 54% male, 90% Caucasian), median overall survival was 18.0 (7.8-49.8) months, with a maximum survivorship of 48.3 years. Respondents ranked overall survival most important, followed by functional independence, emotional well-being, treatment experience, and costs of care (W = 0.342, p < 0.001). Some survivors ranked treatment experience (4%) or costs (6%) as their most important priority. The cohort's physical QOL (P-QOL; 39.79 ± 10.16) and mental QOL (M-QOL; 42.29 ± 15.43) were below that of the general population (50.00 ± 10.00); both p < 0.050. There was no difference in P-QOL and M-QOL based on the presence of metastatic disease (both p > 0.050). Patients who underwent curative surgery had superior M-QOL (45.00 ± 15.22 vs. 36.70 ± 14.53, p = 0.010). Although P-QOL was similar based on duration of survival (40.30 ± 9.75 [< 1 year], 39.33 ± 10.52 [1-5 years], 39.81 ± 10.68 [> 5 years], p = 0.873), M-QOL was higher in patients with extended survivorship (36.87 ± 14.24 [< 1 year], 45.05 ± 14.94 [1-5 years], 47.30 ± 16.36 [> 5 years], p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite enduring physical health impairments, a majority of EC survivors prioritized their survival. However, a few survivors prioritized costs and treatment experience, underscoring the importance of tailoring treatments to ensure alignment with individual patient-driven priorities.

Single-Stage Surgical Procedure for Patients with Primary Esophageal and Lung Cancers

BACKGROUND

 The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of simultaneous surgery for patients with primary esophageal and lung cancers.

METHODS

 Patients with primary esophageal and lung cancers who underwent simultaneous surgical procedures between January 2016 and January 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The data of patients who underwent esophagectomy and lobectomy (group EL) were compared with those of patients who underwent esophagectomy and sublobar resection (group ES).

RESULTS

 A total of 21 patients were included with an average age of 64.62 ± 5.24 years. Group EL contained 8 patients and group ES contained 13 patients. All procedures were completed uneventfully with a mean operative time of 251.19 ± 66.93 minutes. Pulmonary complications occurred in six (28.57%) patients. Other complications included anastomotic leakage in 1 patient, pleural effusion requiring drainage in 8 patients, atrial fibrillation in 2 patients, and incision infection in 1 patient. All patients were followed up for 30.23 ± 21.82 months. During the follow-up period, nine patients had a recurrence of cancer and died of tumor progression, and one patient died of a tracheothoracogastric fistula. Complications and mortality in group EL did not increase when compared to those in group ES.

CONCLUSION

 It is safe and feasible to perform a single-stage surgical procedure for patients with primary esophageal and lung cancers. Simultaneous esophagectomy and lobectomy did not increase postoperative complications or mortality compared with esophagectomy and sublobar resection.

When Gastroplasty Is Not Feasible in Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy: A Single-Center Study of Intrathoracic Esophagojejunostomy

Objective: The surgical management of tumors of the esophagogastric junction is increasingly performed by minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. However, gastroplasty is not always feasible. The creation of a long loop is an alternative for esophageal reconstruction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility of using a minimally invasive thoracoscopic approach in esophagojejunostomy and to describe the contraindications for gastroplasty. Methods: All patients who had intrathoracic esophagojejunostomy in our center were identified in our database. Since 2016, the preferred approach for intrathoracic esophagojejunostomy is minimally invasive laparoscopy and thoracoscopy, using a long Roux-en-Y jejunal loop with a semimechanical triangular anastomosis technique. Results: Between January 1, 2012 and January 1, 2022, 12 patients who had esophagojejunostomy in our center were included in the study. Among them, 6 had thoracotomy and 6 had total minimally invasive thoracoscopy, representing 3.5% of surgical procedures for esophagogastric junction tumors since 2016. The mean operative time was 416.9 ± 107.47 minutes. No anastomotic leakage was observed in the minimally invasive group versus 2 leakages in the thoracotomy group. The main complication was pneumonia in 3 patients (27.3%). Finally, the main indication for intrathoracic esophagojejunostomy was tumor size with a mean of 4.72 ± 2.35 cm and the patient's surgical history. Conclusion: A total minimally invasive approach using a long jejunal loop with triangular anastomosis could be a feasible and reproducible alternative to gastroplasty to restore continuity in Ivor Lewis esophagectomy when the stomach cannot be used.

Transthoracic Esophagectomy: Hand-sewn Versus Side-to-side Linear-stapled Versus Circular-stapled Anastomosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Three anastomotic techniques are mostly used to create an esophagogastric anastomosis in a transthoracic esophagectomy: hand-sewn (HS), side-to-side linear-stapled (SSLS), and circular-stapled (CS). The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcomes after HS, SSLS, and CS intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review using the MEDLINE database was performed to identify original articles analyzing outcomes after HS, SSLS, and CS esophagogastric anastomosis. The main outcome was an anastomotic leakage rate. Secondary outcomes included overall morbidity, major morbidity, and mortality. A meta-analysis of proportions and linear regression models were used to assess the effect of each anastomotic technique on the different outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 101 studies comprising 12,595 patients were included; 8835 (70.1%) with CS, 2532 (20.1%) with HS, and 1228 (9.8%) with SSLS anastomosis. Anastomotic leak occurred in 10% [95% confidence interval (CI), 6%-15%], 9% (95% CI, 6%-13%), and 6% (95% CI, 5%-7%) of patients after HS, SSLS, and CS anastomosis, respectively. Risk of anastomotic leakage was significantly higher with HS anastomosis (odds ratio=1.73, 95% CI: 1.47-2.03, P<0.0001) and SSLS (odds ratio=1.68, 95% CI: 1.36-2.08, P<0.0001), as compared with CS. Overall morbidity (HS: 52% vs. SLSS: 39% vs. CS: 35%) and major morbidity (HS: 33% vs. CS: 19%) rates were significantly lower with CS anastomosis. Mortality rate was 4% (95% CI, 3%-6%), 2% (95% CI, 2%-3%), and 3% (95% CI, 3%-4%) after HS, SSLS, and CS anastomosis, respectively.

CONCLUSION

HS and SSLS intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomoses are associated with significantly higher rates of an anastomotic leak than CS anastomosis.

Challenging delayed bleeding after an Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy

A 66-year-old man underwent a minimally invasive oesophagectomy for oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Surgery and recovery were routine; however, he represented 8 days later with a massive upper gastrointestinal bleed. He was stabilized, but over a 2-week period experienced several bleeds requiring transfusion and multiple endoscopies, all showing a prominent luminal vessel at the oesophago-gastric (OG) anastomosis. Haemostatic clipping was attempted resulting in pulsatile bleeding and transfer to the radiology suite where angiography showed extravasation of contrast at the OG anastomosis from the terminal portion of the gastro-epiploic arcade. Coil embolization was successful and did not result in ischaemia. It was our standard to construct the OG anastomosis with the end-to-end anastomosis circular stapler (DST™ Series EEA™), 4.8-mm staple height. However, we now use the 3.5-mm staple height for improved haemostasis and ensure that the area for anastomosis is cleared of omental tissue so as not to incorporate a visible vessel.

The treatments and postoperative complications of esophageal cancer: a review

Abstract

Esophageal cancer is still one of the most common cancers in the world. We review the appropriate treatments at different stages of esophageal cancer and also analyze the advantages and disadvantages of these treatments. The prognosis and recovery of different treatment regimens are further discussed. In particular, post-operative complications are the major causes of high mortality derived from the esophageal cancer. Therefore, we particularly discuss the main complications resulting in high mortality after surgery of esophageal cancer, and summarize their risk factors and treatment options.

Background

As the common cancer, the complications of esophageal cancer after surgery have been not obtained systematic treatment strategy, focusing on treatment regimens based on the different stages of esophageal cancers.

Methods and overview

This paper systematically summarizes the appropriate treatment strategies for different stages of esophageal cancers, and their advantages and disadvantages. We particularly focus on the postoperative survival rate of patients and postoperative complications, and discuss the causes of high mortality risk factors after surgery. The risk factors of death and corresponding treatment methods are further summarized in this study.

Conclusion

Postoperative complications is the main cause responsible for the hard cure of esophageal cancers. The existing literatures indicate that postoperative anastomotic fistula is one of the most important complications leading to death, while it has not received much attention yet. We suggest that anastomotic fistula should be detected and dealt with early by summarizing these literatures. It is, therefore, necessary to develop a set of methods to predict or check anastomotic fistula in advance.

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Consensus Statement

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly performed in various ways. The lack of international definitions and nomenclature makes accurate comparison of outcomes difficult.

METHODS

An international, multispecialty consensus-writing committee constructed definitions and nomenclature for MIE. After a PubMed search, vetting, and review with all authors, a consensus was reached.

RESULTS

The proposed definition for MIE is an operation "that removes part or all of the esophagus, does not retract, lift, spread or remove any part of the chest or abdominal wall and the surgeon's and assistant's vision of the operative field is via a monitor, the patient's tissue is manipulated only by instruments that are controlled by the operating surgeon or team, except for during the neck portion if used." A flexible nomenclature is proposed that attempts to describe current and future operations and systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Definitions and nomenclature for MIE are needed to ensure that future studies accurately compare results and outcomes of similar operations. Nomenclatures allow surgeons, researchers, and patients from different cultures to use a common language to facilitate communication and compare. This process is required in order to improve patient outcomes globally to drive adoption of best of practice, yet is lacking for MIE.

Outcome of Self-Expanding Metal Stents in the Treatment of Anastomotic Leaks After Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Esophageal anastomotic leakages after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy are severe and life-threatening complications. We analyzed the outcome of using self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) in the treatment of postoperative leakage after esophagogastrostomy.

METHODS

Seventy patients with esophageal anastomotic leakage after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer who had received SEMS treatment between January 2006 and December 2015 at our clinic were identified in this retrospective study. The patients were analyzed according to demographic characteristics, risk factors, leakage characteristics, stent characteristics, stent-related complications, sealing success rate and mortality.

RESULTS

Over a 10-year period, 70 patients received SEMS as treatment for postoperative anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy. Technical success of esophageal stenting in anastomotic leakage was achieved in 50 out of 70 cases (71.4%). Sealing success rate was 70% (n = 49) with a median treatment of 28 days (range 7-87). In 20 patients (28.6%), stent-related complications, such as stenosis, dislocation, leakage persistence, perforation or esophagotracheal fistula occurred after the SEMS treatment. Sixty-one patients (87.1%) survived SEMS treatment of esophagogastric anastomotic leakage. Mean follow-up for all patients was 38 months (IQR 10-76), and no significant difference was found in a comparison of the long-term survival rate between patients with successful and unsuccessful SEMS treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of esophageal anastomotic leaks after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with SEMS is effective, safe and technically feasible. Aggressive non-surgical management should be considered when developing a treatment plan for stenting.