Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: An excellent operation that improves with experience

Abstract Background Both Ivor Lewis (anastomosis in the chest) and McKeown (anastomosis in the neck) esophagectomy has been used to treat patients with esophageal cancer. It is unclear in literature about the survival difference performed by these two methods. Methods A prospective randomized trial enrolling 100 patients with esophageal cancer in the middle or lower esophagus was done to compare the survival outcome treated with minimally invasive esophagectomy by Ivor Lewis and McKeown approaches. Analysis for the retrospective patient cohort (n = 253) including Ivor Lewis (n = 115) and McKeown (n = 138) MIE in the same hospital was also performed. Results There is no significant difference in the overall and disease progression-free survival duration between the two groups of patients (n = 50 for each group) (Figure 1 for overall survival). Similar results were found when the comparison was done for the retrospective and whole patients cohort. Multivariate analysis demonstrates the TNM staging of the tumor to be the single significant factor for prognosis in terms of overall and disease progression-free survival. There was no significant difference in overall and disease progression- free survival between the patients with Ivor Lewis and McKeown MIE both in prospective and retrospective study cohort. Conclusion Ivor Lewis and McKeown MIE provide a similar survival results for the patients with esophageal cancer in the middle and lower thoracic esophagus. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Download Full-text

End to side circular stapled anastomosis during robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE)

Diseases of the Esophagus ◽

10.1093/dote/doab088 ◽

2022 ◽

Author(s):

Giovanni Capovilla ◽

Edin Hadzijusufovic ◽

Evangelos Tagkalos ◽

Caterina Froiio ◽

Felix Berlth ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Esophageal Cancer ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Primary Outcome ◽

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽

Postoperative Mortality ◽

The Other ◽

Ivor Lewis ◽

Robotic Assisted ◽

Intrathoracic Anastomosis ◽

Invasive Esophagectomy

Abstract Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) represents an established approach for the treatment of esophageal cancer. Aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of our technique for performing the intrathoracic anastomosis during RAMIE.All the procedures were performed by the same surgeon using the same technique for performing the intrathoracic anastomosis. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were recorded. Postoperative complications were classified according to the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG); the primary outcome was the evaluation of the feasibility and safety of our technique. From 2016 to 2021, 204 patients underwent Ivor Lewis RAMIE at our Center. Two patients (0.9%) were converted during the thoracic phase. The anastomosis was completed in all the other patients forming complete anastomotic rings. The median duration for the robotic-assisted thoracoscopic phase was 224 minutes. Twenty-two of the RAMIE-Ivor Lewis patients had an anastomotic leakage (10.3%). The overall 90-day postoperative mortality was 1.9%. The procedure resulted to be feasible and safe in our cohort of patients.

Download Full-text

Comparison of the surgical outcomes of McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy and Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for the treatment of middle esophageal cancer: A single-center retrospective study

Laparoscopic Endoscopic and Robotic Surgery ◽

10.1016/j.lers.2020.01.001 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 3 (1) ◽

pp. 12-16

Author(s):

Raojun Luo ◽

Zhengfu He ◽

Yong Xu ◽

Ziyi Zhu

Keyword(s):

Esophageal Cancer ◽

Retrospective Study ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Surgical Outcomes ◽

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽

Single Center ◽

Ivor Lewis ◽

Invasive Esophagectomy ◽

Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy

Download Full-text

European consensus on essential steps of Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis and McKeown Esophagectomy through Delphi methodology

Surgical Endoscopy ◽

10.1007/s00464-021-08304-5 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Yassin Eddahchouri ◽

◽

Frans van Workum ◽

Frits J. H. van den Wildenberg ◽

Mark I. van Berge Henegouwen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Minimally Invasive ◽

Expert Panel ◽

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽

Round Table ◽

Round Table Discussion ◽

Ivor Lewis ◽

Delphi Methodology ◽

Invasive Esophagectomy ◽

European Consensus ◽

Mckeown Esophagectomy

Abstract Background Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is a complex and technically demanding procedure with a long learning curve, which is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. To master MIE, training in essential steps is crucial. Yet, no consensus on essential steps of MIE is available. The aim of this study was to achieve expert consensus on essential steps in Ivor Lewis and McKeown MIE through Delphi methodology. Methods Based on expert opinion and peer-reviewed literature, essential steps were defined for Ivor Lewis (IL) and McKeown (McK) MIE. In a round table discussion, experts finalized the lists of steps and an online Delphi questionnaire was sent to an international expert panel (7 European countries) of minimally invasive upper GI surgeons. Based on replies and comments, steps were adjusted and rephrased and sent in iterative fashion until consensus was achieved. Results Two Delphi rounds were conducted and response rates were 74% (23 out of 31 experts) for the first and 81% (27 out of 33 experts) for the second round. Consensus was achieved on 106 essential steps for both the IL and McK approach. Cronbach’s alpha in the first round was 0.78 (IL) and 0.78 (McK) and in the second round 0.92 (IL) and 0.88 (McK). Conclusions Consensus among European experts was achieved on essential surgical steps for both Ivor Lewis and McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Download Full-text

Short- and long-term outcomes in patients operated with total minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Diseases of the Esophagus ◽

10.1093/dote/doab061 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Tobias Hauge ◽

Dag T Førland ◽

Hans-Olaf Johannessen ◽

Egil Johnson

Keyword(s):

Overall Survival ◽

Esophageal Cancer ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽

University Hospital ◽

Long Term Results ◽

Resection Margins ◽

Invasive Esophagectomy ◽

Short And Long Term

Summary At our hospital, the main treatment for resectable esophageal cancer (EC) has since 2013 been total minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE). The aim of this study was to present the short- and long-term results in patients operated with TMIE. This cross-sectional study includes all patients scheduled for TMIE from June 2013 to January 2016 at Oslo University Hospital. Data on morbidity, mortality, and survival were retrospectively collected from the patient administration system and the Norwegian Cause of Death Registry. Long-term postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQL) and level of dysphagia were assessed by patients completing the following questionaries: EORTC QLQ-OG25, QLQ-C30, and the Ogilvie grading scale. A total of 123 patients were included in this study with a median follow-up time of 58 months (1–88 months). 85% had adenocarcinoma, 15% squamous cell carcinoma. Seventeen patients (14%) had T1N0M0, 68 (55%) T2-T3N0M0, or T1-T2N1M0 and 38 (31%) had either T3N1M0 or T4anyNM0. Ninety-eight patients (80%) received neoadjuvant (radio)chemotherapy and 104 (85%) had R0 resection. Anastomotic leak rate and 90-days mortality were 14% and 2%, respectively. The 5-year overall survival was 53%. Patients with tumor free resection margins of >1 mm (R0) had a 5-year survival of 57%. Median 60 months (range 49–80) postoperatively the main symptoms reducing HRQL were anxiety, chough, insomnia, and reflux. Median Ogilvie score was 0 (0–1). In this study, we report relatively low mortality and good overall survival after TMIE for EC. Moreover, key symptoms reducing long-term HRQL were identified.

Download Full-text

696 LONG-TERM OUTCOMES OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY COMPARED TO OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY: A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF 2958 CASES IN SINGLE CANCER CENTER

Diseases of the Esophagus ◽

10.1093/dote/doab052.696 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

Xue-feng Leng ◽

Kexun Li ◽

Qifeng Wang ◽

Wenwu He ◽

Kun Liu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Esophageal Cancer ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽

Cancer Center ◽

Term Survival ◽

Invasive Esophagectomy ◽

Open Esophagectomy ◽

Single Cancer

Abstract Esophageal cancer is the fourth primary cause of cancer-related death in the male in China.The cornerstone of treatment for resectable esophageal cancer is surgery. With the development of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), it is gradually adopted as an alternative to open esophagectomy (OE) in real-world practice. The purpose of this study is to explore whether MIE vs. OE will bring survival benefits to patients with the advancement of treatment techniques and concepts. Methods Data were obtained from the Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute Esophageal Cancer Case Management Database (SCH-ECCM Database). We retrospective analyzed esophageal cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy from Jan. 2010 to Nov. 2017. Patients were divided into two groups: MIE and OE groups. Clinical outcome and survival data were compared using TNM stages of AJCC 8th edition. Results After 65.3 months of median follow-up time, 2958 patients who received esophagectomy were included. 1106 of 2958 patients (37.4%) were underwent MIE, 1533 of 2958 patients (51.8%) were underwent OE. More than half of the patients (56.7%, 1673/2958) were above stage III. The median overall survival (OS) of 2958 patients was 51.6 months (95% CI 45.2–58.1). The MIE group's median OS was 74.6 months compared to 42.4 months in the OE group (95% CI 1.23–1.54, P < 0.001). The OS at 1, 3, and 5 years were 90%, 68%, 58% in the MIE group; 85%, 54%, 42% in the OE group,respectively (P<0.001). Conclusion The nearly 8-year follow-up data from this single cancer center suggests that with the advancement of minimally invasive surgical technology, MIE can bring significant benefits to patients' long-term survival compared with OE. Following the continuous progression of minimally invasive surgery and establishing a mature surgical team, MIE should be encouraged.

Download Full-text

Costs and benefits of different methods of esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Asian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals ◽

10.1177/0218492317731389 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 25 (7-8) ◽

pp. 513-517 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Alongkorn Yanasoot ◽

Kamtorn Yolsuriyanwong ◽

Sakchai Ruangsin ◽

Supparerk Laohawiriyakamol ◽

Somkiat Sunpaweravong

Keyword(s):

Esophageal Cancer ◽

Postoperative Pain ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Operative Time ◽

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽

Laparoscopic Approach ◽

Costs And Benefits ◽

Invasive Approach ◽

Invasive Esophagectomy ◽

Open Esophagectomy

Background A minimally invasive approach to esophagectomy is being used increasingly, but concerns remain regarding the feasibility, safety, cost, and outcomes. We performed an analysis of the costs and benefits of minimally invasive, hybrid, and open esophagectomy approaches for esophageal cancer surgery. Methods The data of 83 consecutive patients who underwent a McKeown’s esophagectomy at Prince of Songkla University Hospital between January 2008 and December 2014 were analyzed. Open esophagectomy was performed in 54 patients, minimally invasive esophagectomy in 13, and hybrid esophagectomy in 16. There were no differences in patient characteristics among the 3 groups Minimally invasive esophagectomy was undertaken via a thoracoscopic-laparoscopic approach, hybrid esophagectomy via a thoracoscopic-laparotomy approach, and open esophagectomy by a thoracotomy-laparotomy approach. Results Minimally invasive esophagectomy required a longer operative time than hybrid or open esophagectomy ( p = 0.02), but these patients reported less postoperative pain ( p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in blood loss, intensive care unit stay, hospital stay, or postoperative complications among the 3 groups. Minimally invasive esophagectomy incurred higher operative and surgical material costs than hybrid or open esophagectomy ( p = 0.01), but there were no significant differences in inpatient care and total hospital costs. Conclusion Minimally invasive esophagectomy resulted in the least postoperative pain but the greatest operative cost and longest operative time. Open esophagectomy was associated with the lowest operative cost and shortest operative time but the most postoperative pain. Hybrid esophagectomy had a shorter learning curve while sharing the advantages of minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Download Full-text