Outcomes With Open and Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy After Neoadjuvant Therapy

Objective Although considered an integral part of treatment for regionally advanced esophageal cancer, there is conflicting literature regarding the effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on esophagectomy. The objectives of this study are to examine the effect of neoadjuvant therapy in regard to perioperative parameters, morbidity, and short-term mortality in patients undergoing a minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIE). Methods This is a retrospective review of 39 patients undergoing MIE for esophageal cancer during 2007–2010. Results Of the 39 patients, 14 (36%) did not receive neoadjuvant therapy (NCR) and 25 (64%) did receive either chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy (CR). On comparing NCR vs CR, there was no difference in operative time (361 vs 362 minutes; P = 0.94) or estimated blood loss (233 vs 190 mL; P = 0.06). All patients underwent an R0 resection, and there was no difference in the mean number of lymph nodes harvested (NCR 21.5 vs CR 21.6; P = 0.95). Both groups had mean intensive care unit stay of 1 day (P = 0.7), and there was no difference in length of stay (NCR 7.4 vs CR 8.2 days; P = 0.38). There were no deaths or anastomotic leaks in either group. The incidence of complications in the NCR group was 21% (3/14) while in the CR group was 48% (12/25). Complications were not associated with neoadjuvant therapy [CR vs NCR: odds ratio = 3.44 (0.72–16.38); P = 0.121], even after adjusting for comorbidities and age. Conclusions MIE can be performed safely following neoadjuvant therapy with similar perioperative results, morbidity, and short-term mortality when compared with MIE alone. Longer follow-up is required for oncologic validity.

Download Full-text

Indocyanine green perfusion assessment of the gastric conduit in minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy

Surgical Endoscopy ◽

10.1007/s00464-021-08346-9 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Keouna Pather ◽

Adeline M. Deladisma ◽

Christina Guerrier ◽

Isaac R. Kriley ◽

Ziad T. Awad

Keyword(s):

Minimally Invasive ◽

Indocyanine Green ◽

Gastric Conduit ◽

Ivor Lewis ◽

Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy ◽

Perfusion Assessment

Download Full-text

792 OUTCOMES AFTER TOTALLY MINIMALLY INVASIVE VERSUS HYBRID OR OPEN IVOR LEWIS ESOPHAGECTOMY: RESULTS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL ESODATA STUDY GROUP.

Diseases of the Esophagus ◽

10.1093/dote/doab052.792 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

Berend Van Der Wilk ◽

Eliza R C Hagens ◽

Ben M Eyck ◽

Suzanne S Gisbertz ◽

Richard Hillegersberg ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Length Of Stay ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Anastomotic Leakage ◽

Hospital Length Of Stay ◽

Mortality Data ◽

Study Group ◽

Ivor Lewis ◽

Open Esophagectomy ◽

Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy ◽

The Impact

Abstract To compare complications following totally minimally invasive (TMIE), laparoscopically assisted (hybrid) and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer. Three randomized trials have reported benefits for minimally invasive esophagectomy. Two studies compared TMIE versus open esophagectomy and another compared hybrid versus open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Only small retrospective studies compared TMIE with hybrid Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Methods Data were used from the International Esodata Study Group assessing patients undergoing TMIE, hybrid or open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Primary outcome was pneumonia, secondary outcomes included incidence and severity of anastomotic leakage, (major) complications, length of stay, escalation of care and 90-day mortality. Data were analyzed using multivariate multilevel models. Results In total, 4733 patients were included in this study (TMIE:1472, hybrid:1364 and open:1897). Patients undergoing TMIE had lower incidence of pneumonia compared to hybrid (10.9% vs 16.3%, Odds Ratio (OR):0.56, 95%CI: 0.40–0.80) and open esophagectomy (10.9% vs 17.4%, OR:0.60, 95%CI: 0.42–0.84) and had shorter length of stay (median 10 days (IQR 8–16)) compared to hybrid (14 (11–19), p = 0.041) and open esophagectomy (11 (9–16), p = 0.027). Patients undergoing TMIE had higher rate of anastomotic leakage compared to hybrid (15.1% vs 10.7%, OR:1.47, 95%CI: 1.01–2.13) and open esophagectomy (7.3%, OR:1.73, 95%CI: 1.26–2.38). No differences were reported between hybrid and open esophagectomy. Conclusion Compared to hybrid and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, TMIE resulted in a lower pneumonia rate, a shorter hospital length of stay but a higher anastomotic leakage rate. The impact of these individual complications on survival and long-term quality of life should be further investigated.

Download Full-text

Modified Intrathoracic Esophagogastrostomy with Minimally Invasive Robot-Assisted Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy for Cancer

Digestive Surgery ◽

10.1159/000495361 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 36 (3) ◽

pp. 218-225 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Wen-Ping Wang ◽

Long-Qi Chen ◽

Han-Lu Zhang ◽

Yu-Shang Yang ◽

Song-Lin He ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Minimally Invasive ◽

Circular Stapler ◽

Purse String Suture ◽

Robot Assisted ◽

Purse String ◽

Ivor Lewis ◽

Intrathoracic Anastomosis ◽

Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy ◽

Estimated Blood Loss ◽

Esophagectomy For Cancer

Background: Intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy plays an important role in minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for cancer. Intrathoracic anastomosis with robot-assisted Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy (RAILE) includes hand-sewn and circular stapler methods, which remain technically challenging. In this study, we modified the techniques for intrathoracic anastomosis at RAILE, in order to simplify the complex procedures. Methods: “Side-insertion” technique was used for anvil placement and purse string suture for intrathoracic anastomosis at RAILE. Medical records for consecutive patients who had undergone robot-assisted minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for cancer between January 2015 and June 2018 were analyzed. Results: A total of consecutive 31 patients were enrolled. There was no conversion to open thoracotomy in this cohort. Mean operation duration in the robotic group was 387.4 ± 68.2 min. Median estimated blood loss was 110 mL (range 50–400 mL). Two patients (6.5%) had postoperative anastomotic leak. No postoperative reoperation was needed and there were no mortality. Six patients (19.4%) had anastomotic stricture and 2 patients of them needed endoscopic dilation. Conclusion: RAILE is safe and feasible. Our modified procedure highlighting the “side-insertion” method may simplify the process of intrathoracic anvil placement and purse string suture for anastomosis at RAILE.

Download Full-text