Assessment and comparison of recovery after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer: an exploratory study in two centers

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) may lead to early restoration of health-related quality of life, but few prospective comparative studies have been performed. This exploratory study compared recovery between totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), laparoscopically assisted esophagectomy (LAE) and open surgery (OE).

METHODS

A prospective study in 2 specialist centers recruited consecutive patients undergoing OE, LAE, or MIE for high-grade dysplasia or cancer. Patients completed validated questionnaires, the Multi-Dimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20), modified Katz Scale, and modified Lawton and Brody Scale (assessing activities of daily living) before and 6 weeks and 3 and 6 months after surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 97 patients (26 women; median age 64 years) were scheduled for surgery that was abandoned in 11 due to occult low-volume metastatic disease. In the remaining 86 (OE = 19, LAE = 31, and MIE = 36), there were 4 in-hospital deaths (4 %), and 54 postoperative complications (OE = 12, LAE = 19, and MIE = 23). Overall questionnaire compliance was high (77 %) and baseline scores similar in all groups, although clinical differences between groups were observed with earlier tumors and more squamous cell cancers selected for MIE. Following surgery fatigue levels increased dramatically and activity levels reduced in all groups. These gradually recovered to baseline following MIE and LAE within 6 months, but the ability to perform activities of daily living and most parameters of fatigue had not returned to baseline levels in the OE group.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory prospective nonrandomized study of recovery after different types of surgery for esophageal cancer showed possible small benefits to MIE. A much larger study is needed to confirm these findings.

Demonstration of the IDEAL recommendations for evaluating and reporting surgical innovation in minimally invasive oesophagectomy

Background

The Idea, Development, Evaluation, Assessment and Long term study (IDEAL) framework makes recommendations for evaluating and reporting surgical innovation and adoption, but remains untested.

Methods

A prospective database was created for the introduction of minimally invasive techniques for oesophagectomy. IDEAL stages of development and evaluation were examined retrospectively in a series of patients undergoing laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO), two- or three-phase minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) and open oesophagectomy.

Results

A total of 192 patients were involved. In IDEAL stages 1 and 2a, LAO in 16 patients was uneventful, but two-phase MIO in six patients was abandoned following consecutive technical complications. Two-phase MIO was modified to a three-phase MIO procedure, and the results of LAO (67 patients), three-phase MIO (35) and open techniques (68) were studied in IDEAL stage 2b. Major complications (Clavien–Dindo grades III and IV) occurred in 12 (18 per cent), nine (26 per cent) and 14 (21 per cent) LAO, three-phase MIO and open procedures respectively. There were four in-hospital deaths (2 LAO and 2 open).

Conclusion

The IDEAL framework is a feasible method for documenting the development and implementation of a procedure. MIO should now be compared with open surgery in a randomized controlled trial (IDEAL stage 3).

Evaluation of a radiographer-provided barium enema service

AIM

Radiographers performed and reported 5516 double contrast barium enemas (RDCBEs) over 4 years to October 2001. This study was undertaken to assess the accuracy of RDCBE and the sensitivity for diagnosing colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHOD

A total of 224 consecutive outpatient RDCBEs were reported; normal (C1), diverticulosis (C2), diverticulosis with filling defect (C3), diverticulosis & other pathology (C4) and abnormal (C5). RDCBEs were then reported by a radiologist (AL, NS) and the two reports compared. Of 450 CRCs, 153 had undergone DCBE; 152 RDCBEs. Reports were analysed to establish concurrence between radiographer and radiologist and final CRC diagnosis.

RESULTS

By category: C1 - 37%, C2 - 31%, C3 - 21%, C4 - 11%, C5 - 0%. C4s included polyps (50%), cancer (12.5%), disrupted anastomosis (8%) and colitis (4%). There was no discrepancy between RDCBE and radiologist reports. Radiology and CRC diagnosis agreed in 145 of 152 DCBEs. There were three exclusions: DCBEs occurred outside the study period (2), one only with raised possibility of malignancy. Of eight remaining RDCBEs, seven were false negatives and one false positive. Sensitivity score for RDCBE was 94.5%. Double reporting by a radiologist did not improve sensitivity.

CONCLUSION

RDCBEs are as accurate as those performed by radiologists and have a very high sensitivity for CRC. In a time of ever increasing demands for complex staging investigations for CRC and interventional radiology, the ACPGBI needs to reconsider its guidelines on radiographers not only performing but also reporting DCBE.