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

Surgical complications after minimally invasive oesophagectomy compared to open oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: A population-based, nationwide study in Finland

INTRODUCTION

Evidence on the safety of minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) compared to open oesophagectomy (OO) in nationwide practice is lacking. The aim of this study was to compare surgical complications after MIO and OO in a nationwide, population-based, unselected cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Descriptive statistics were used to report complications and complication categories defined by the Oesophagectomy Complications Consensus Group, major complications, reoperations and 90-day mortality in all patients undergoing MIO and OO in Finland during 2007-2016. Main outcomes were compared using logistic regression, adjusting for confounding.

RESULTS

Out of 699 patients, 295 (42 %) underwent MIO and 404 (58 %) underwent OO. Rates of anastomotic leakage (10 % vs 14 %, OR 0.47 (0.25-0.89)), intrathoracic abscesses (3 % vs 9 %, OR 0.13 (0.05-0.46)), major complications (35 % vs 47 %, OR 0.39 (0.25-0.60)) and reoperations (18 % vs 26 %, OR 0.43 (0.26-0.73)) were lower with MIO. Rates of pneumonia (16 % vs 27 %, OR 0.62 (0.38-1.03)), intra-abdominal abscesses (0.7 % vs 3.0 %, OR 0.20 (0.04-1.13)) and 90-day mortality (3.1 % vs 6.7 %, HR 0.48 (0.18-1.26)) were lower with MIO, but non-significant after adjustment. Pulmonary complications (36 % vs 46 %, OR 0.63 (0.41-0.96)) and infectious complications (11 % vs 22 %, OR 0.41 (0.23-0.73)) were less common with MIO, while rates of cardiac, gastrointestinal, urologic, thromboembolic, and neurologic complications were similar.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests a significant reduction in various surgical complications in patients undergoing MIO compared to OO and that implementing MIO into nationwide practice can be done safely.

ESDE-MIE fellowship: a descriptive analysis of the first experiences

Esophageal resection is a high-risk and technically demanding procedure, with a long proficiency-gain curve. The European Society Diseases of the Esophagus (ESDE)-Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (MIE) training program was launched in 2018 for European surgeons willing to train and to begin a career undertaking MIE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the first experience of the ESDE-MIE fellowship and relate this to the initially predetermined core principles and objectives of the program. Between October 2021 and May 2022, the participating fellows, in collaboration with the ESDE Educational Committee, initiated a survey to assess the outcome and experience of these fellowships. Data from each individual fellowship were analysed and reported in a descriptive manner. Between 2018 and 2022, in total, five fellows have completed the ESDE-MIE fellowship program. Despite the COVID-19 outbreak just the year after its launch, predetermined clinical and research goals were achieved in all cases. Each of the fellows were able to assist in a median of 40 (IQR 27-69) MIE and/or Robot assisted (RA)MIE procedures, of a total median of 115 (IQR 83-123) attended Upper GI cases. After the fellowship, MIE has been fully adopted by the fellows who returned to their home institutions as Upper GI surgeons. The fellowship was concluded by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) Multidisciplinary Joint Committee (MJC) certification in Upper GI Surgery, which was successfully obtained by all who took part. Based on the experience of the first five fellows, the ESDE-MIE training fellowship meets with the expected needs even despite the COVID-19 outbreak in 2019. Furthermore, these fellows have returned home and integrated MIE into their independent surgical practice, affirming the ability of this program to train the next generation of MIE surgeons, even in the most challenging of circumstances.

Robotic versus thoraco-laparoscopic minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, a matched-pair single-center cohort analysis

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is becoming more widespread with a documented improvement in postoperative morbidity based on level I evidence. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal MIE approach, conventional thoracoscopy/laparoscopy vs robotics as well as the ideal anastomotic technique. All patients who underwent MIE via an Ivor Lewis approach with a side-to-side stapled anastomosis were included. The thoracoscopy-laparoscopy (TL) group was compared to the robotic group with respect to perioperative outcomes using the entire cohorts and after 1:1 propensity score matching. Comparisons were made using the Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact tests. Between July 2013 and November 2020, 72 TL and 67 robotic Ivor Lewis MIE were performed. After comparing the two unadjusted cohorts and 51 propensity matched pairs, there was a decrease in Clavien-Dindo Grade 2 or above complications in the robotic vs TL group (59.7% vs 41.8% [P = 0.042], (62.7% vs 39.2% [P = 0.029]), respectively. In both analyses, there was a reduction in hospital length of stay (median of 8 vs 7 days, P < 0.001) and a trend toward less anastomotic leaks in the robotic group (Unadjusted: 12.5 vs 3% [P = 0.057], Propensity-matched analysis: 13.7% vs 3.9% [P = 0.16]), respectively. A clinically significant decrease in overall morbidity, cardiac complications and hospital length of stay was observed in the robotic Ivor Lewis cohort when compared with the TL group at a high volume MIE program. Side-to-side stapled thoracic anastomoses utilizing a robotic platform provides the best outcomes in this single institution experience.

Framework for Training in Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery: An International Delphi Consensus Study

BACKGROUND

Previous reports suggest that structured training in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS) can ensure a safe implementation into standard practice. Although some training programs have been constructed, worldwide consensus on fundamental items of these training programs is lacking. This study aimed to determine items for a structured MIPS training program using the Delphi consensus methodology.

STUDY DESIGN

The study process consisted of 2 Delphi rounds among international experts in MIPS, identified by a literature review. The study committee developed a list of items for 3 key domains of MIPS training: (1) framework, (2) centers and surgeons eligible for training, and (3) surgeons eligible as proctor. The experts rated these items on a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important). A Cronbach's α of 0.70 or greater was defined as the cut-off value to achieve consensus. Each item that achieved 80% or greater of expert votes was considered as fundamental for a training program in MIPS.

RESULTS

Both Delphi study rounds were completed by all invited experts in MIPS, with a median experience of 20 years in MIPS. Experts included surgeons from 31 cities in 13 countries across 4 continents. Consensus was reached on 38 fundamental items for the framework of training (16 of 35 items, Cronbach's α = 0.72), centers and surgeons eligible for training (19 of 30 items, Cronbach's α = 0.87), and surgeons eligible as proctor (3 of 10 items, Cronbach's α = 0.89). Center eligibility for MIPS included a minimum annual volume of 10 distal pancreatectomies and 50 pancreatoduodenectomies.

CONCLUSION

Consensus among worldwide experts in MIPS was reached on fundamental items for the framework of training and criteria for participating surgeons and centers. These items act as a guideline and intend to improve training, proctoring, and safe worldwide dissemination of MIPS.

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal cancer training curriculum-a worldwide Delphi consensus study

BACKGROUND

Structured training protocols can safely improve skills prior initiating complex surgical procedures such as robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). As no consensus on a training curriculum for RAMIE has been established so far it is our aim to define a protocol for RAMIE with the Delphi consensus methodology.

METHODS

Fourteen worldwide RAMIE experts were defined and were enrolled in this Delphi consensus project. An expert panel was created and three Delphi rounds were performed starting December 2019. Items required for RAMIE included, but were not limited to, virtual reality simulation, wet-lab training, proctoring, and continued monitoring and education. After rating performed by the experts, consensus was defined when a Cronbach alpha of ≥0.80 was reached. If ≥80% of the committee reached a consensus an item was seen as fundamental.

RESULTS

All Delphi rounds were completed by 12-14 (86-100%) participants. After three rounds analyzing our 49-item questionnaire, 40 items reached consensus for a training curriculum of RAMIE.

CONCLUSION

The core principles for RAMIE training were defined. This curriculum may lead to a wider adoption of RAMIE and a reduction in time to reach proficiency.

End-to-side circular stapled versus side-to-side linear stapled intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis following minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy: comparison of short-term outcomes

PURPOSE

The search for the optimal procedure for creation of a safe gastroesophageal intrathoracic anastomosis with a lower risk of leakage in totally minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (TMIIL) is ongoing. In the present study, we compared the outcomes of end-to-side (with circular stapler [CS]) and side-to-side (with linear stapler [LS]) techniques for intrathoracic anastomosis during TMIIL performed in 2 European high-volume centers for upper gastrointestinal surgery. A propensity score method was used to compare the CS and LS groups.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated patients with lower esophageal cancer or Siewert type 1 or 2 esophagogastric junction carcinoma who underwent a planned TMIIL esophagectomy, performed from January 2017 to September 2020. The anastomosis was created by a semi-mechanical technique using a LS in one center and by a mechanical technique using a CS in the other center. General features, operative techniques, pathology data, and short-term outcomes were analyzed. Statistical evaluations were performed on the whole cohort, stratifying the analyses by risk strata factors identified with the propensity scores, and on a subgroup of patients matched by propensity score. The primary endpoint of the study was the rate of anastomotic leakage in the two groups. Secondary endpoints included rates of anastomotic stricture and overall postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Considering the whole population, 256 patients were included; of those, 220 received the anastomosis with a circular stapler (CS group), and 36 received the anastomosis with a linear stapler (LS group). No significant differences by group in terms of sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, and type of neoplasm were showed. The rate of anastomotic leakage did not differ in the two groups (9.6% CS vs. 5.6% LS, p = 0.438), as well as the rate of anastomotic stricture in the 3-month follow-up (0.9% CS vs. 2.8% LS, p = 0.367). The rate of chyle leakage and of pulmonary, cardiac, and infective complications was not significantly different in the groups. After propensity score matching, 72 patients were included in the analysis. The 2 obtained propensity score matched groups did not differ for any of the clinical and pathologic variables considered for the analysis, resulting in well-balanced cohorts. The results obtained on the whole population were confirmed in the matched groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study suggest that both techniques for esophagogastric anastomosis during TMIIL are feasible, safe, and effective, with comparable rates of postoperative anastomotic leakage and stricture.

Transition from open to minimally invasive en bloc esophagectomy can be achieved without compromising surgical quality

BACKGROUND

En bloc esophagectomy results in higher lymph node (LN) retrieval than standard esophagectomy. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has gained traction due to improved short-term outcomes, but many large series report LN yields well below the international benchmark of 23. We sought to determine if an established approach to open en bloc resection can be safely transferred to MIE using LN yield as a quality benchmark.

METHODS

An open approach to en bloc esophagectomy (OE) was established over 5 years (~ 300 cases) before en bloc MIE was introduced in 2010. Patients undergoing curative-intent en bloc Ivor-Lewis and McKeown esophagectomy for cancer from 2010 to 2019 by a single surgeon with formal minimally invasive surgery training were identified from a prospectively collected database. Mann-Whitney U and χ² tests and cumulative sum analysis were used for statistical analysis. "Failure" was defined as LN yield less than AJCC's 8th edition guidelines: 10 LNs for pT1 cancers, 20 for pT2 and 30 for pT3-4.

RESULTS

A total of 269 esophageal resections met inclusion criteria [193(72%) OE; 76(28%) MIE]. Age, sex, BMI and comorbidities were comparable between groups. Tumors were larger and more often locally advanced in OE. Median LN retrieval was sufficient by international standards in both groups [OE:34(27-46); MIE:28(22-39); p = 0.01]. "Failures" occurred in 33(17%) of OE and 12(16%) MIE cases (p = 0.63). No learning effect was observed for LN yield. R0 resection rate was comparable [OE:191(99%); MIE:73(96%); p = 0.90]. Operative time was longer for MIE [275(246-300)] than OE [240(210-270) minutes], p < 0.0001, while estimated blood loss (OE:350(250-500)mL; MIE:300(200-400)mL; p = 0.02] and length of stay [OE:8(6-13); MIE7(6-9) days; p = 0.02] were higher for OE. Morbidity and mortality were comparable between groups and LN yield did not impact survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Under appropriate conditions, an established approach to open en bloc esophagectomy can be safely transferred to MIE without compromising surgical quality.

Diagnostic criteria and symptom grading for delayed gastric conduit emptying after esophagectomy for cancer: international expert consensus based on a modified Delphi process

Delayed gastric conduit emptying (DGCE) after esophagectomy for cancer is associated with adverse outcomes and troubling symptoms. Widely accepted diagnostic criteria and a symptom grading tool for DGCE are missing. This hampers the interpretation and comparison of studies. A modified Delphi process, using repeated web-based questionnaires, combined with live interim group discussions was conducted by 33 experts within the field, from Europe, North America, and Asia. DGCE was divided into early DGCE if present within 14 days of surgery and late if present later than 14 days after surgery. The final criteria for early DGCE, accepted by 25 of 27 (93%) experts, were as follows: >500 mL diurnal nasogastric tube output measured on the morning of postoperative day 5 or later or >100% increased gastric tube width on frontal chest x-ray projection together with the presence of an air-fluid level. The final criteria for late DGCE accepted by 89% of the experts were as follows: the patient should have 'quite a bit' or 'very much' of at least two of the following symptoms; early satiety/fullness, vomiting, nausea, regurgitation or inability to meet caloric need by oral intake and delayed contrast passage on upper gastrointestinal water-soluble contrast radiogram or on timed barium swallow. A symptom grading tool for late DGCE was constructed grading each symptom as: 'not at all', 'a little', 'quite a bit', or 'very much', generating 0, 1, 2, or 3 points, respectively. For the five symptoms retained in the diagnostic criteria for late DGCE, the minimum score would be 0, and the maximum score would be 15. The final symptom grading tool for late DGCE was accepted by 27 of 31 (87%) experts. For the first time, diagnostic criteria for early and late DGCE and a symptom grading tool for late DGCE are available, based on an international expert consensus process.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Learning curves in minimally invasive esophagectomy

Surgical innovation and pioneering are important for improving patient outcome, but can be associated with learning curves. Although learning curves in surgery are a recognized problem, the impact of surgical learning curves is increasing, due to increasing complexity of innovative surgical procedures, the rapid rate at which new interventions are implemented and a decrease in relative effectiveness of new interventions compared to old interventions. For minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), there is now robust evidence that implementation can lead to significant learning associated morbidity (morbidity during a learning curve, that could have been avoided if patients were operated by surgeons that have completed the learning curve). This article provides an overview of the evidence of the impact of learning curves after implementation of MIE. In addition, caveats for implementation and available evidence regarding factors that are important for safe implementation and safe pioneering of MIE are discussed.

Oesophagectomy: The expanding role of minimally invasive surgery in oesophageal cancer

Historically, open oesophagectomy was the gold standard for oesophageal cancer surgery. This was associated with a relatively higher morbidity. In the last two decades, we have seen significant improvements in short and long term outcomes due to centralisation of oesophagectomy, multidisciplinary approach, enhanced recovery after surgery programmes, neoadjuvant treatments and advances in minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) techniques. MIO has significantly reduced postoperative morbidity and improved functional recovery, while maintaining comparable long-term oncological outcomes. MIO is technically demanding, and requires a long learning curve. However, it has been proven to be safe and successful in expert centres. This is a review on the current role of MIO in the management of oesophageal cancer.