Long-term outcome of open versus hybrid minimally invasive Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy: a propensity score matched study†

Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for gastrointestinal stromal tumors of esophagogastric junction: A multicenter, retrospective cohort analysis with propensity score weighting

Objective

Laparoscopic resection is increasingly performed for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). However, the laparoscopic approach for GISTs located in the esophagogastric junction (EGJ-GIST) is surgically challenging. This study compares the efficacy of laparoscopic surgery and the open procedure for EGJ-GIST through the propensity score weighting (PSW) method.

Methods

Between April 2006 and April 2018, 1,824 surgical patients were diagnosed with primary gastric GIST at four medical centers in South China. Of these patients, 228 were identified as EGJ-GISTs and retrospectively reviewed clinicopathological characteristics, operative information, and long-term outcomes. PSW was used to create the balanced cohorts.

Results

PSW was carried out in laparoscopic and open-surgery cohorts according to year of surgery, sex, age, body mass index (BMI), tumor size, mitotic rates and recurrence risk. After PSW, 438 patients consisting of 213 laparoscopic (L group) and 225 open surgery (O group) patients were enrolled. After PSW, the following measures in the L group were superior to those in the O group: median operative time [interquartile range (IQR)]: 100.0 (64.5−141.5)vs. 149.0 (104.0−197.5) min, P<0.001; median blood loss (IQR): 30.0 (10.0−50.0)vs. 50.0 (20.0−100.0) mL, P=0.002; median time to liquid intake (IQR): 3.0 (2.0−4.0)vs. 4.0 (3.0−5.0) d, P<0.001; median hospital stay (IQR): 6.0 (4.0−8.0)vs. 7.0 (5.0−12.0) d, P<0.001; and postoperative complications (10.3%vs. 22.7%, P=0.001). The median follow-up was 55 (range, 2−153) months in the entire cohort. No significant differences were detected in either relapse-free survival (RFS) [hazard ratio (HR): 0.372, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.072−1.910, P=0.236) or overall survival (OS) (HR: 0.400, 95% CI: 0.119−1.343, P=0.138) between the two groups.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic surgery for EGJ-GIST is associated with the advantages of shorter operative time, reduced blood loss, shorter time to liquid intake, and shorter length of stay, all without compromising postoperative outcomes and long-term survival.

Minimally invasive techniques for transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oesophagectomy is a demanding operation that can be performed by different approaches including open surgery or a combination of minimal access techniques. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of open, minimally invasive and robotic oesophagectomy techniques for oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting open oesophagectomy, laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO), thoracoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (TAO), totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) or robotic MIO (RAMIO) for oesophagectomy. A network meta-analysis of intraoperative (operating time, blood loss), postoperative (overall complications, anastomotic leaks, chyle leak, duration of hospital stay) and oncological (R0 resection, lymphadenectomy) outcomes, and survival was performed.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight studies involving 32 315 patients were included in the network meta-analysis (open 17 824, 55·2 per cent; LAO 1576, 4·9 per cent; TAO 2421 7·5 per cent; MIO 9558, 29·6 per cent; RAMIO 917, 2·8 per cent). Compared with open oesophagectomy, both MIO and RAMIO were associated with less blood loss, significantly lower rates of pulmonary complications, shorter duration of stay and higher lymph node yield. There were no significant differences between surgical techniques in surgical-site infections, chyle leak, and 30- and 90-day mortality. MIO and RAMIO had better 1- and 5-year survival rates respectively compared with open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive and robotic techniques for oesophagectomy are associated with reduced perioperative morbidity and duration of hospital stay, with no compromise of oncological outcomes but no improvement in perioperative mortality.

Current Issues in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was first introduced in the 1990s. Currently, it is a widely accepted surgical approach for the treatment of esophageal cancer, as it is an oncologically sound procedure; its advantages when compared to open procedures, including reduction in postoperative complications, reduction in the length of hospital stay, and improvement in quality of life, are well documented. However, debates are still ongoing about the safety and efficacy of MIE. The present review focuses on some of the current issues related to conventional MIE and robot-assisted MIE based on evidence from the current literature.

Comparative Perioperative Outcomes by Esophagectomy Surgical Technique

INTRODUCTION

Surgical resection is vital in the curative management of patients with esophageal cancer. However, a myriad of surgical procedures exists based on surgeon preference and training. We report on the perioperative outcomes based on esophagectomy surgical technique.

METHODS

A prospectively managed esophagectomy database was queried for patients undergoing esophagectomy from 1996 and 2016. Basic demographics, tumor characteristics, operative details, and post-operative outcomes were recorded and analyzed by comparison of transhiatal vs Ivor-lewis and minimally invasive (MIE) vs open procedures.

RESULTS

We identified 856 patients who underwent esophagectomy. Neoadjuvant therapy was administered in 543 patients (63.4%). There were 504 (58.8%) open esophagectomies and 302 (35.2%) MIE. There were 13 (1.5%) mortalities and this did not differ among techniques (p = 0.6). While there was no difference in overall complications between MIE and open, complications occurred less frequently in patients undergoing RAIL and MIE IVL compared to other techniques (p = 0.003). Pulmonary complications also occurred less frequently in RAIL and MIE IVL (p < 0.001). Anastomotic leaks were less common in patients who underwent IVL compared to trans-hiatal approaches (p = 0.03). MIE patients were more likely to receive neoadjuvant therapy (p = 0.001), have lower blood loss (p < 0.001), have longer operations (p < 0.001), and higher lymph node harvests (p < 0.001) compared to open patients.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive and robotic Ivor Lewis techniques demonstrated substantial benefits in post-operative complications. Oncologic outcomes similarly favor MIE IVL and RAIL.

Propensity score-matched comparison between open and minimal invasive hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

This study compared the outcome between patients who had an open and those who had a hybrid esophagectomy for T1 or T3 esophageal adenocarcinoma (eAC). No clear data are available concerning this question based on T-category.

METHODS

Two groups of patients with esophagectomy and high intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy for eAC were analyzed: hybrid (laparoscopy + right thoracotomy) (n = 835) and open (laparotomy + right thoracotomy) (n = 188). Outcome criteria were 30- and 90-day mortality, R0-resection rate (R0), number of resected lymph nodes (rLNs), and 5-year survival rate (5y-SR). For each type of surgery, three patient groups were analyzed: pT1-carcinoma (group-1), cT3Nx and neoadjuvant chemoradiation (group-2), and pT3N0-3 without neoadjuvant therapy (group-3). The comparison was based on a propensity score matching in relation of 1:2 for open versus hybrid.

RESULTS

In group-1 (38 open vs 76 hybrid) R0-resection (100%), 30-day mortality (0%), 90-day mortality (2.6% vs 0%), and rLNs (median 29.5 vs 28.5) were not significantly different. The pN0-rate was 76% in the open and 92% in the hybrid group (p = 0.036). Accordingly, the 5y-SR was 69% and 87% (p = 0.016), but the prognosis of the subgroups pT1pN0 or pT1pN+ was not significantly different between open or hybrid. In group-2 (68 open vs 135 hybrid) R0-resection (97%), 30-day (0% vs 0.7%) and 90-day (4%) mortality, rLNs (28.5 vs 26), and 5y-SR (36% vs 41%) were not significantly different. In group-3 (37 open vs 75 hybrid) R0, postoperative mortality, rLNs, and 5y-SR were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

In a propensity score-matched comparison of patients with an open or hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma the quality of oncologic resection, postoperative mortality and prognosis are not different.

Postoperative short-term outcomes of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to synthesize the available evidence regarding short‐term outcomes between minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE).

Methods

Studies were identified by searching databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library up to March 2019 without language restrictions. Results of these searches were filtered according to a set of eligibility criteria and analyzed in line with PRISMA guidelines.

Results

There were 33 studies included with a total of 13 269 patients in our review, out of which 4948 cases were of MIE and 8321 cases were of OE. The pooled results suggested that MIE had a better outcome regarding all‐cause respiratory complications (RCs) (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.41–0.78, P = <0.001), in‐hospital duration (SMD = −0.51; 95% CI = −0.78−0.24; P = <0.001), and blood loss (SMD = −1.44; 95% CI = −1.95−0.93; P = <0.001). OE was associated with shorter duration of operation time, while no statistically significant differences were observed regarding other outcomes. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed for a number of different postoperative events.

Conclusions

Our study indicated that MIE had more favorable outcomes than OE from the perspective of short‐term outcomes. Further large‐scale, multicenter randomized control trials are needed to explore the long‐term survival outcomes after MIE versus OE.

Current status of esophageal cancer treatment

Esophageal cancer (EC) remains one of the most common and aggressive diseases worldwide. This review discusses some debates in the modern management of the disease. Endoscopic procedures for early cancer (T1a−b) are now embedded in routine care and the challenge will be to more accurately select patients for endoscopic resection with or without adjuvant therapy. Perioperative multimodal therapies are associated with improved survival compared to surgery alone for locally advanced esophageal cancer. However, there is no global consensus on the optimal regimen. Furthermore, histological subtype (adenocarcinomavs. squamous cell cancer) plays a role in the choice for treatment. New studies are underway to resolve some issues. The extent of the lymphadenectomy during esophagectomy remains controversial especially after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The ideal operation balances between limiting surgical trauma and optimizing survival. Minimally invasive esophagectomy and enhanced recovery pathways are associated with decreased morbidity and faster recovery albeit there is no consensus yet what approach should be used. Finally, immune checkpoint inhibitors present promising preliminary results in the novel treatment of advanced or metastatic EC but their widespread application in clinical practice is still awaited.

Efficacy of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy vs open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The first line treatment regimen for esophageal cancer is still surgical resection and the choice of surgical scheme depends on surgeon. Now the efficacy comparison of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) is still controversial.

AIM

To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of HMIE and OE in patients with esophageal cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for related articles. The odds ratio (OR) or standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to evaluate the effectiveness of HMIE and OE.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies including a total of 2397 patients were selected. HMIE was significantly associated with less blood loss (SMD = -0.43, 95%CI: -0.66, -0.20; P = 0.0002) and lower incidence of pulmonary complications (OR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.57, 0.90; P = 0.004). No significant differences were seen in the lymph node yield (SMD = 0.11, 95%CI: -0.08, 0.30; P = 0.26), operation time (SMD = 0.24, 95%CI: -0.14, 0.61; P = 0.22), total complications rate (OR = 0.68, 95%CI: 0.46, 0.99; P = 0.05), cardiac complication rate (OR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.62, 1.34; P = 0.64), anastomotic leak rate (OR = 0.95, 95%CI: 0.67, 1.35; P = 0.78), duration of intensive care unit stay (SMD = -0.01, 95%CI: -0.21, 0.19; P = 0.93), duration of hospital stay (SMD = -0.13, 95%CI: -0.28, 0.01; P = 0.08), and total mortality rates (OR = 0.70, 95%CI: 0.47, 1.06; P = 0.09) between the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the OE, HMIE shows less blood loss and pulmonary complications. However, further studies are necessary to evaluate the long-term oncologic outcomes of HMIE.

Clinical observation of modified gastric tube in middle and lower thoracic esophageal carcinoma surgery

Background

A clinical case-control study was conducted to analyze the short-term efficacy of modified gastric tube in surgery for middle (mid)- and lower- thoracic esophageal carcinoma compared with the conventional gastric tube and its effect on postoperative pulmonary function.

Methods

A total of 70 patients with mid- and lower-thoracic esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy between October 2012 and September 2018 in our hospital were recruited in the study. They were randomly divided into a modified gastric tube group (n = 35) and a conventional gastric tube group (n = 35). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, number of intraoperative lymph node dissection, gastrointestinal decompression time and postoperative hospital stay were recorded. The operation results and complications were recorded, and the pulmonary function was recorded at 3 days before surgery and 6 weeks after surgery.

Results

The operation time in the modified gastric tube group was significantly lower than that in the gastric tube group (P < 0.05). There were no anastomotic leakage or death occurred in the modified gastric tube group. There was 1 case of anastomotic leakage in the conventional gastric tube group. The pulmonary function in both groups was improved at 6 weeks after surgery, but there was no significant difference between both groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Modified gastric tube has a good clinical application value compared with gastric tube for patients with mid- and lower-thoracic esophageal cancer. It is easy and safe, and can shorten the operation time without aggravation of pulmonary function after surgery.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs for esophagectomy

A perioperative treatment protocol, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) focuses on accelerating patient recovery. Previous studies confirmed that ERAS decreases surgical trauma and the stress response, which improved outcomes including reduced length of hospital stay (LOS) and decreased postoperative morbidity. While ERAS protocols have been successfully implemented in a variety of surgical disciplines (colorectal, bariatric, orthopedic, and gynecologic surgery), its use in esophageal surgery is still limited. This paper analyzes the feasibility and value of the ERAS protocol for esophageal surgery. Reviewing the literature found that implementation of ERAS resulted in decreased costs, length of stay and pulmonary specific complication reduction, but not overall morbidity. The evidence lacks randomized control trials. Further, the ERAS Society published recommendations for esophageal resection. This opportunity for unification of the protocol would make the studies more comparable and leads to stronger conclusions. Surgery specific items also require further confirmation. Nonetheless, the successful introduction of the ERAS protocol into a wide variety of surgical disciplines provides optimism for ERAS's effectiveness in esophageal surgery.

Hybrid esophagectomy

Esophagectomy is a complex surgical procedure associated with high rates of mortality and morbidity, mainly dominated by pulmonary complications. Minimally invasive approaches have been developed in order to decrease postoperative morbidity, including totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and hybrid esophagectomy in which one surgical step is achieved either by laparoscopy or thoracoscopy and the other step by open approach. In this review, we will discuss the main results of this hybrid approach in esophagectomy for cancer. Hybrid esophagectomy is associated with better postoperative outcomes compared to open approach, and similar outcomes compared to totally MIE, especially concerning pulmonary complications. For long-terms outcomes, hybrid approach showed similar, or even better, overall survival than open approach. With a short learning curve, hybrid esophagectomy with laparoscopic gastric mobilization will be the future gold standard for esophagectomy and should be further compared with totally MIE.

[Minimally invasive esophagectomy]

Certain advantages of minimally invasive esophagectomy compared with conventional approaches were observed. Optimal surgical access, technique and features of anastomoses formation are still unclear despite common tendency to minimally invasive esophageal surgery. Further researches are necessary to resolve these problems and improve the outcomes.