Long-Term Survival After Transhiatal Versus Transthoracic Esophagectomy: A Population-Based Nationwide Study in Finland

Impact of surgeon specialty on clinical outcomes following esophagectomy for cancer

BACKGROUND

The impact of surgeon and hospital operative volume on esophagectomy outcomes is well-described; however, studies examining the influence of surgeon specialty remain limited. Therefore, we evaluated the impact of surgeon specialty on short-term outcomes following esophagectomy for cancer.

METHODS

The 2016-2019 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS NSQIP) was queried to identify all patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Surgeon specialty was categorized as general (GS) or thoracic (TS). Entropy balancing was used to generate sample weights that adjust for baseline differences between GS and TS patients. Weights were subsequently applied to multivariable linear and logistic regressions, which were used to evaluate the independent association of surgeon specialty with 30-day mortality, complications, and postoperative length of stay.

RESULTS

Of 2657 esophagectomies included for analysis, 54.1% were performed by TS. Both groups had similar distributions of age, sex, and body mass index. TS patients more frequently underwent transthoracic esophagectomy, while GS patients more commonly received minimally invasive surgery. After adjustment, surgeon specialty was not associated with altered odds of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.10 p = 0.73) or anastomotic leak (AOR 0.87, p = 0.33). However, TS patients exhibited a 40-min reduction in operative duration and faced greater odds of perioperative transfusion, relative to GS.

CONCLUSION

Among ACS NSQIP participating centers, surgeon specialty influenced operative duration and blood product utilization, but not mortality and anastomotic leak. Our results support the relative safety of esophagectomy performed by select GS and TS.

Controversies in the surgical management of esophageal adenocarcinoma

The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has risen dramatically over the last decade. Over this same period, our understanding and treatments have been revolutionized. Just over a decade ago, the majority of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer went directly to surgery and our overall survival was bleak. Our current strategy for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is a multi-disciplinary approach. This approach consists of chemotherapy plus or minus radiation followed by surgical resection followed by adjuvant immunotherapy with the presence of any residual disease. Therefore, now more than ever, the goals of surgery are to minimize morbidity, provide aggressive local control and allow patients to receive to quickly recover so they can receive adjuvant systemic therapy. Surgery continues to play a crucial role in the multi-disciplinary approach to EAC. This review will highlight the on-going areas of controversy in surgical treatment. These controversies are around surgical selection, perioperative decision making and the role of surgery. Specifically, there are controversies in the type of surgical approach offered. This review will discuss the benefits of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy. The indications for gastrectomy versus esophagectomy in patients with gastroesophageal junction EAC. Further, at the time of operation, there is still debate and on-going trials addressing the addition of a pyloric intervention. Lastly, as we push the limits of systemic therapy, there are those who may not even need a surgical resection. This review will cover the most recent data on selective esophageal resection and the concerns regarding this approach.