Minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy, a symptom assessment study

Are intra-operative gastric drainage procedures necessary in esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Surgical pyloroplasty or pyloromyotomy are often performed during esophagectomy with a view of improving gastric conduit drainage. However, the clinical importance of this is not clear, and some centers opt to omit this step. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the rates of pulmonary complications, anastomotic leak, mortality, delayed gastric emptying, and the need for further pyloric intervention, in patients undergoing esophagectomy with and without a drainage procedure.

METHODS

A database search of Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was performed to identify randomized control trials and cohort studies published between 2000 and 2020 which compared outcomes of esophagectomy with and without drainage procedures. A random-effects meta-analysis model was used to compare the rates of pulmonary complications, anastomotic leak, mortality, delayed gastric emptying, and the need for further pyloric intervention.

RESULTS

Three randomized and 12 non-randomized publications were identified, comprising a total of 2339 patients. No significant differences were found between the two groups with regard to pulmonary complications (RR 1.02 [95% CI, 0.78-1.33], p = 0.91), anastomotic leak (RR 1.14 [95% CI, 0.80-1.62], p = 0.48), mortality (RR 0.53 [95% CI, 0.23-1.26], p = 0.15), delayed gastric emptying (RR 0.98 [95% CI, 0.59-1.62], p = 0.93), and the need for further pyloric intervention (RR 1.99 [95% CI, 0.56-7.08], p = 0.29).

CONCLUSION

Where post-operative pyloric treatment is available on demand, surgical pyloric drainage procedures may not have any significant clinical impact on patient outcomes for patients undergoing esophagectomy, though further good-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this.

Gastrointestinal Motility Issues in Cancer Patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This paper seeks to highlight GI motility disorders that are frequently present in patients with a malignancy. GI dysmotility can occur due to the cancer itself or as a consequence of medical and surgical treatments. Often, symptoms are nonspecific and the diagnosis requires a high index of suspicion. The goal of the paper is to review the common motility problems seen in patients with cancer, their clinical manifestations, and options for management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies show that newer endoscopy techniques such as endoscopic mucosal dissection can cause esophageal dysmotility. Opioid-induced constipation is frequently encountered in patients with cancer. Motility disorders in cancer patient can lead to clinical morbidity, poor quality of life, and malnutrition. Newer diagnostic tests and medical and surgical treatments may be helpful in improving the diagnosis and management of these disorders.

Does pyloric drainage have a role in the era of minimally invasive esophagectomy?

INTRODUCTION

Pyloric drainage during minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) may be more technically challenging than with an open approach. Alternatives to classic surgical drainage have increased in popularity; however, data are lacking to demonstrate whether one technique is superior in MIE. The purpose of this study was to compare post-operative outcomes after MIE between different pyloric drainage methods.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing MIE at a single academic institution. Patients were divided into three groups for analysis: no drainage, intrapyloric Botulinum Toxin injection, and surgical drainage (pyloroplasty or pyloromyotomy). The primary outcome was any complication within 90 days of surgery; secondary outcomes included reported symptoms and need for pyloric dilation at 6 and 12 months post-operatively. Comparisons among groups were conducted using the Kruskal Wallis and Chi Square tests.

RESULTS

There were 283 MIE performed between 2011 and 2017; of these, 126 (45%) had drainage (53 Botulinum injection and 73 surgical). No significant difference in the rate of post-operative complications, pneumonia, or anastomotic leak was observed between groups. At 6 and 12 months, patients that received Botulinum injection and surgical drainage had significantly more symptoms than no drainage (p < 0.0001) and higher need for pyloric dilation at 6 months (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Pyloric drainage was not significantly associated with lower post-operative complications or long-term symptoms. While Botulinum injection appears safe post-operatively, it was associated with increased morbidity long-term. Pyloric drainage in MIE may be unnecessary.

The comparison of thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy and open esophagectomy: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy (TLE) and open esophagectomy (OE) in the treatment of esophageal cancer.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases for relevant keywords and the medical subject headings. After we had screened further, 13 clinical trials were included in the final meta-analysis. Specific odds ratios (ORs), standardized mean differences (SMDs), mean differences (MDs), and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

The outcomes of treatment effects included anastomotic leakage, blood loss, number of lymph nodes harvested, and operating time. Comparing OE for esophageal cancer patients, the pooled OR of anastomotic leakage was 0.89 (95% CI = [0.47, 1.68]), the pooled SMD of blood loss was - 0.56 (95% CI = [-0.77, -0.35]), the pooled MD of lymph nodes harvested was - 0.93 (95% CI = [-2.35, 0.50]), and the pooled SMD of operating time was 0.31 (95% CI = [0.02, 0.59]).

CONCLUSION

TLE was found to significantly decrease patients' blood loss. There is no difference of anastomotic leakage and the number of lymph nodes harvested between TLE and OE.

Is Chemical Pyloroplasty Necessary for Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy?

BACKGROUND

Many centers use botulinum toxin for chemical pyloroplasty in minimally invasive esophagectomies as prophylaxis against delayed gastric emptying. No previous studies have compared botulinum toxin injection with no pyloric intervention for patients treated with a combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approach. The authors hypothesized that chemical pyloroplasty does not improve outcomes for these patients.

METHODS

The study investigated patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomies from September 2009 to June 2015. Delayed gastric emptying was defined as inability to tolerate a soft diet by postoperative day 10, as corroborated by esophagram, upper endoscopy, or both. Data were compared using Student's t test, χ ² analysis, and Mann-Whitney U test where appropriate.

RESULTS

The study identified 71 patients treated with minimally invasive esophagectomy: 35 patients with chemical pyloroplasty treated from September 2009 to January 2014 and 36 patients without pyloric intervention from February 2014 to June 2015. The groups were statistically similar in age, gender distribution, T stage, percentage of patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy, body mass index, preoperative weight loss, preoperative serum albumin, and preoperative placement of feeding tubes (all p > 0.05). The overall incidence of delayed gastric emptying was low in both groups: 8.6% (3/35) of the patients with chemical pyloroplasty versus 5.6% (2/36) of the patients with no pyloric intervention (p = 0.62). The two groups also did not differ significantly in the development of aspiration pneumonia or the need for pyloric intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

In a well-matched cohort study with a historical control group, use of botulinum toxin for chemical pyloroplasty in minimally invasive esophagectomies was not associated with improved outcomes related to the pylorus versus no pyloric intervention. Although preliminary, these data suggest that chemical pyloroplasty is not necessary in minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

Background

Open esophagectomy (OE) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) reduces complications in resectable esophageal cancer. The aim of this study is to explore the superiority of MIO in reducing complications and in-hospital mortality than OE.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Wanfang, and Wiley Online Library were thoroughly searched. Odds ratio (OR)/weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess the strength of association.

Results

Fifty-seven studies containing 15,790 cases of resectable esophageal cancer were included. MIO had less intraoperative blood loss, short hospital stay, and high operative time (P < 0.05) than OE. MIO also had reduced incidence of total complications; (OR = 0.700, 95% CI = 0.626 ~ 0.781, P_V < 0.05), pulmonary complications (OR = 0.527, 95% CI = 0431 ~ 0.645, P_V < 0.05), cardiovascular complications (OR = 0.770, 95% CI = 0.681 ~ 0.872, P_V < 0.05), and surgical technology related (STR) complications (OR = 0.639, 95% CI = 0.522 ~ 0.781, P_V < 0.05), as well as lower in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.668, 95% CI = 0.539 ~ 0.827, P_V < 0.05). However, the number of harvested lymph nodes, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, gastrointestinal complications, anastomotic leak (AL), and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (RLNP) had no significant difference.

Conclusions

MIO is superior to OE in terms of perioperative complications and in-hospital mortality.

Quality of Life and Late Complications After Minimally Invasive Compared to Open Esophagectomy: Results of a Randomized Trial

Background

The minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is widely being implemented for esophageal cancer in order to reduce morbidity and improve quality of life. Non-randomized studies investigating the mid-term quality of life after MIE show conflicting results at 1-year follow-up. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine whether MIE has a continuing better mid-term 1-year quality of life than open esophagectomy (OE) indicating both a faster recovery and less procedure-related symptoms.

Methods

A one-year follow-up analysis of the quality of life was conducted for patients participating in the randomized trial in which MIE was compared with OE. Late complications as symptomatic stenosis of anastomosis are also reported.

Results

Quality of life at 1 year was better in the MIE group than in the OE group for the physical component summary SF36 [50 (6; 48–53) versus 45 (9; 42–48) p .003]; global health C30 [79 (10; 76–83) versus 67 (21; 60–75) p .004]; and pain OES18 module [6 (9; 2–8) versus 16 (16; 10–22) p .001], respectively. Twenty six patients (44 %) in the MIE and 22 patients (39 %) in the OE group were diagnosed and treated for symptomatic stenosis of the anastomosis.

Conclusions

This first randomized trial shows that MIE is associated with a better mid-term one-year quality of life compared to OE.

Surgical techniques to prevent delayed gastric emptying after esophagectomy with gastric interposition: a systematic review

Delayed gastric emptying is observed in 10% to 50% of patients after esophagectomy with gastric interposition. The effects of gastric interposition diameter, pyloric drainage, reconstructive route, and anastomotic site on postoperative gastric emptying were systematically reviewed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Most studies showed superior passage of the gastric tube compared with the whole stomach. Pyloric drainage is not significantly associated with the risk of developing delayed gastric emptying after esophagectomy. For reconstructive route and anastomotic site, available evidence on delayed gastric emptying is limited. Prospectively randomized studies with standardized outcome measurements are recommended.

Should we continue to drain the pylorus in patients undergoing an esophagectomy?

A systematic review of the literature was performed to assess the necessity of a pyloric drainage procedure during an esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction. Earlier data recommend performing a pyloric drainage procedure for all esophagectomies; however, recent studies have questioned this. A thorough literature search (January 2001-November 2011) was performed using the terms esophagectomy, pyloroplasty, pyloromyotomy, botulinum toxin, and pyloric drainage. Only studies that compared patient outcome after undergoing an esophagectomy with a pyloric drainage procedure with those undergoing an esophagectomy without a pyloric drainage procedure were selected. Only four studies, comprising 668 patients in total, were identified that compared patient outcome after undergoing an esophagectomy with or without a pyloric drainage procedure, and two additional meta-analyses were identified and selected for discussion. All studies were retrospective, and because of the heterogeneity of studies, patient demographics, reporting, and statistical analysis of patient outcome, pooling of data and meta-analysis could not be performed. Careful analysis demonstrated that pyloric drainage procedure was associated with a non-significant trend for delayed gastric emptying and biliary reflux, while not affecting the incidence of dumping. No correlation was determined between a pyloric drainage procedure and anastomotic leaks, postoperative pulmonary complications, length of hospital stay, and overall perioperative morbidity. While there are risks associated with a pyloric drainage procedure and data exist supporting its omission during an esophagectomy, no good conclusion can be drawn from the current literature. Larger multi-institutional, prospective studies are required to definitively answer this question.

Comparison of pyloric intervention strategies at the time of esophagectomy: is more better?

BACKGROUND

Controversy remains regarding the role of pyloric drainage procedures after esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction. We aimed to compare the effect of pyloric drainage strategies upon subsequent risk of complications suggestive of conduit distention, including aspiration and anastomotic leak.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted reviewing patients undergoing esophagectomy between January 2007 and April 2012. Prospectively collected data included baseline comorbidities, operative details, hospital course, and complications. Statistical comparisons were performed using analysis of variance for continuous variables and χ(2) testing for categorical variables.

RESULTS

There were 361 esophagectomies performed during the study period; 68 were excluded from analysis (for prior esophagogastric surgery or benign disease or both). Among 293 esophagectomies included, emptying procedures were performed as follows: 44 (15%), no drainage procedure; 197 (67%), pyloromyotomy/pyloroplasty; 8 (3%), dilation alone; 44 (15%), dilation plus onabotulinumtoxinA. Aspiration occurred more frequently when no pyloric intervention was performed (5 of 44 [11.4%] versus 6 of 249 [2.4%], p = 0.030). The incidences of anastomotic leak (18 [6.1%]) and gastric outlet obstruction (5 [1.7%]) were statistically similar among groups. Subgroup analysis demonstrated persistence of these findings when limiting the comparison to transthoracic esophagectomies. Major complications directly related to pyloroplasty/pyloromyotomy occurred in 2 patients (0.6%), including 1 death (0.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that omission of pyloric intervention at the index operation results in more frequent aspiration events. The combination of dilation plus onabotulinumtoxinA provided for a similar complication profile compared with surgical drainage. Future prospective comparisons are needed to evaluate these short-term effects of pyloric intervention as well as long-term sequelae such as dumping syndrome and bile reflux.

The impact of pyloric drainage on clinical outcome following esophagectomy: a systematic review

Delayed emptying of the gastric conduit following esophagectomy can be associated with an increased incidence of complications including aspiration pneumonia and anastomotic leak. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the current modalities of pyloric drainage following esophagectomy and their impact on anastomotic integrity and postoperative morbidity. Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane library, trial registries, and conference proceedings were searched. Five pyloric management strategies following esophagectomy were evaluated: no intervention, botulinum toxin (botox) injection, finger fracture, pyloroplasty, and pyloromyotomy. Outcomes evaluated were hospital mortality, anastomotic leak, pulmonary complications, delayed gastric emptying, and the late complication of bile reflux. Twenty-five publications comprising 3172 patients were analyzed. Pooled analysis of six comparative studies published after 2000 revealed pyloric drainage to be associated with a nonsignificant trend toward a reduced incidence of anastomotic leak, pulmonary complications, and delayed gastric emptying. Overall, the current level of evidence regarding the merits of individual pyloric drainage strategies remains very poor. There is significant heterogeneity in the definitions of clinical outcomes, in particular delayed gastric emptying, which has prevented meaningful assessment and formulation of consensus regarding the management of the pylorus during esophagectomy. Pyloric drainage procedures showed a non-significant trend toward fewer anastomotic leaks, pulmonary complications, and reduced gastric stasis when employed following esophagectomy. However, the ideal technique remains unproven suggesting that further collaborative investigations are needed to determine the intervention that will maximize the potential benefits, if any, of pyloric intervention.

Review of minimally invasive esophagectomy and current controversies

Esophagectomy is a complex operation with significant morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was described in the 1990s in an effort to reduce operative morbidity. Since then many institutions have adopted and described their series with this technique. This paper reviews the literature on the variety of MIE techniques, clinical and quality of life outcomes with open versus MIE, and controversies surrounding MIE-such as prone positioning, stapling techniques, size of the gastric conduit, and robotic techniques.