scholarly journals Operative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy versus Open Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (04) ◽  
pp. 230-235
Author(s):  
Ramachandra Chowdappa ◽  
Anvesh Dharanikota ◽  
Ravi Arjunan ◽  
Syed Althaf ◽  
Chennagiri S. Premalata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Pulmonary Complications ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy ◽  
Operative Duration

Abstract Background There is a recent rise in the incidence of esophageal carcinoma in India. Surgical resection with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiation is the current treatment modality of choice. Postoperative complications, especially pulmonary complications, affect many patients who undergo open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) could reduce the pulmonary complications and reduce the postoperative stay. Methodology We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 114 patients with esophageal cancer in the department of surgical oncology at a tertiary cancer center in South India between January 2019 and March 2020. We included patients with resectable cancer of middle or lower third of the esophagus, and gastroesophageal junction tumors (Siewert I). MIE was performed in 27 patients and 78 patients underwent open esophagectomy (OE). The primary outcome measured was postoperative complications of Clavien–Dindo grade II or higher within 30 days. Other outcomes measured include overall mortality within 30 days, intraoperative complications, operative duration and the length of hospital stay. Results A postoperative complication rate of 18.5% was noted in the MIE group, compared with 41% in the OE group (p = 0.034). Pulmonary complications were noted in 7.4% in the MIE group compared to 25.6% in the OE group (p = 0.044). Postoperative mortality rates, intraoperative complications, and other nonpulmonary postoperative complications were almost similar with MIE as with open esophagectomy. Although the median operative time was more in the MIE group (260 minutes vs. 180 minutes; p < 0.0001), the median length of hospital stay was shorter in patients undergoing MIE (9 days vs. 12 days; p = 0.0001). Conclusions We found that MIE resulted in lower incidence of postoperative complications, especially pulmonary complications. Although, MIE was associated with prolonged operative duration, it resulted in shorter hospital stay.

P175 TRANSLATION OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY FROM RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL SETTING (TIME) TO NATIONAL PRACTICE (DUCA) IN NETHERLANDS

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
R Markar Sheraz ◽  
Ni Melody ◽  
Gisbertz Suzanne ◽  
Straatman Jennifer ◽  
van der Peet Donald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Time Trial ◽  
Reoperation Rate ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy

Abstract Aims The TIME trial showed reduced pulmonary complications from minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) over an open approach, and led to widespread adoption of MIE in the Netherlands. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes from minimally invasive esophagectomy in the DUCA (national dataset) and the TIME trial (RCT) for transthoracic esophagectomy1. Methods Original patient data from the TIME trial1 was extracted along-with data from the Dutch National Cancer Audit (DUCA) (2011-2017). Initially univariate analysis was used to compare patient and tumor demographics and clinical and pathological outcomes from patients receiving MIE in the TIME trial and in the DUCA-dataset. Secondly multivariate analysis, with adjustment patient and tumor factors, was performed for the effect of MIE vs. Open esophagectomy on clinical outcomes in both datasets. Thirdly the datasets were combined and multivariate analysis, was performed for the effect of patient inclusion in TIME trial or DUCA-dataset. Results 115 patients from TIME (59 MIE vs. 56 open) and 4605 patients from the DUCA-dataset (2652 MIE vs. 1953 open) were included. Univariate analysis showed, in TIME trial, MIE reduced postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. However in the DUCA-dataset, MIE increased postoperative complications, re-intervention rate and length of hospital stay, however pathological benefits included increased proportion of R0 margin and lymph nodes harvested. Multivariate analysis confirmed the TIME data showed MIE reduced postoperative complications (OR=0.38, 95%CI 0.16–0.90). In the DUCA-dataset, MIE was associated with increased postoperative complications (OR=1.37, 95%CI 1.20–1.55), re-intervention (OR=1.84, 95%CI 1.57–2.14), and length of hospital stay (Coeff=1.57, 95%CI 0.06–3.08). Pathological benefits to MIE in the DUCA-dataset included a reduction in proportion of R1 margin, and increased lymph node harvest. Multivariate analysis of the combined dataset, showed inclusion in the TIME trial was associated with a reduction in postoperative complications (OR=0.23, 95%CI 0.15–0.36) and reoperation rate (OR=0.34, 95%CI 0.17–0.66). Conclusions MIE when adopted nationally outside the TIME-trial, was associated with an increase in postoperative complications and reoperation rate, which may reflect surgeons on a national level going through their proficiency-gain curve in the technique and outside of expert MIE centers.

scholarly journals Implementation of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy From a Randomized Controlled Trial Setting to National Practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (19) ◽  
pp. 2130-2139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheraz R. Markar ◽  
Melody Ni ◽  
Suzanne S. Gisbertz ◽  
Leonie van der Werf ◽  
Jennifer Straatman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Time Trial ◽  
Pulmonary Complications ◽  
Invasive Technique ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy

PURPOSE The aim of this study was to examine the external validity of the randomized TIME trial, when minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was implemented nationally in the Netherlands, using data from the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit (DUCA) for transthoracic esophagectomy. METHODS Original patient data from the TIME trial were extracted along with data from the DUCA dataset (2011-2017). Multivariate analysis, with adjustment for patient factors, tumor factors, and year of surgery, was performed for the effect of MIE versus open esophagectomy on clinical outcomes. RESULTS One hundred fifteen patients from the TIME trial (59 MIE v 56 open) and 4,605 patients from the DUCA dataset (2,652 MIE v 1,953 open) were included. In the TIME trial, univariate analysis showed that MIE reduced pulmonary complications and length of hospital stay. On the contrary, in the DUCA dataset, MIE was associated with increased total and pulmonary complications and reoperations; however, benefits included increased proportion of R0 margin and lymph nodes harvested, and reduced 30-day mortality. Multivariate analysis from the TIME trial showed that MIE reduced pulmonary complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.61). In the DUCA dataset, MIE was associated with increased total complications (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.57), pulmonary complications (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.29 to 1.74), reoperations (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.42 to 2.14), and length of hospital stay. Multivariate analysis of the combined and MIE datasets showed that inclusion in the TIME trial was associated with a reduction in reoperations, Clavien-Dindo grade > 1 complications, and length of hospital stay. CONCLUSION When adopted nationally outside the TIME trial, MIE was associated with an increase in total and pulmonary complications and reoperation rate. This may reflect nonexpert surgeons outside of high-volume centers performing this minimally invasive technique in a nonstandardized fashion outside of a controlled environment.

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

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 &lt; 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&lt;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.

Costs and benefits of different methods of esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 513-517 ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Surgical Benefits of Prone Position Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy Over Open Thoracic and Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy in Left Lateral Decubitus Position: A Literature Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Kazuo Koyanagi ◽  
Kazuo Koyanagi ◽  
Kentaro Yatabe ◽  
Miho Yamamoto ◽  
Soji Ozawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Lymph Node ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Lymph Nodes ◽  
Mediastinal Lymph Node ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Node Dissection ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Left Lateral Decubitus Position ◽  
Lateral Decubitus

Objective: We reviewed the surgical outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), especially the number of lymph nodes retrieved, for the patients with esophageal cancer to clarify the surgical benefits of MIE in patients with esophageal cancer. Material and Methods: A systematic literature search was performed, and articles that fully described the surgical results of MIE were selected. Parameters such as operative time, blood loss, the number of lymph nodes retrieved, and postoperative complications were compared among patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in the left lateral decubitus position (MIE-LP), MIE in the prone position (MIE-PP), and open thoracic esophagectomy (OE). Results: The conversion rate from MIE to OE was very low. MIE-PP was associated with lower blood loss than OE and MIE-LP. Results of a multicenter randomized controlled trial demonstrated that pneumonia and recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis in MIE-PP significantly reduced compared with OE. Although postoperative complications were not different between MIE-PP and MIE-LP, the number of lymph nodes retrieved in MIE-PP was higher than that in MIE-LP. Conclusion: MIE-PP has potential benefits in terms of less surgical invasiveness and improvement of mediastinal lymph node dissection. A prospective randomized control trial using a large number of cases and long-term follow-up is recommended for analyses of appropriate mediastinal lymph node dissection and its impact on oncological benefit.

Long-term survival in esophageal cancer after minimally invasive esophagectomy compared to open esophagectomy

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Eivind Gottlieb-Vedi ◽  
Joonas H. Kauppila ◽  
Fredrik Mattsson ◽  
Mats Lindblad ◽  
Magnus Nilsson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy

623 MINIMALLY INVASIVE VERSUS OPEN MCKEOWN FOR PATIENTS WITH ESOPHAGEAL CANCER: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Zheng ◽  
Wenqun Xing ◽  
Xianben Liu ◽  
Haibo Sun
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Group 14 ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy ◽  
Surgery Department

Abstract   McKeown Minimally invasive esophagectomy(McKeown-MIE) offers advantages in short-term outcomes compared with McKeown open esophagectomy(McKeown-OE). However, debate as to whether MIE is equivalent or better than OE regarding survival outcomes is ongoing. The aim of this study was to compare long-term survival between McKeown-MIE and McKeown-OE in a large cohort of esophageal cancer(EC) patients. Methods We used a prospective database of the Thoracic Surgery Department at our Cancer Hospital and included patients who underwent McKeown-MIE and McKeown-OE for EC during January 1, 2015, to January 6, 2018. The perioperative data and overall survival(OS) rate in the two groups were retrospectively compared. Results We included 502 patients who underwent McKeown-MIE (n = 306) or McKeown-OE (n = 196) for EC. The median age was 63 years. All baseline characteristics were well-balanced between two groups. There was a significantly shorter mean operative time (269.76 min vs. 321.14 min, P &lt; 0.001) in OE group. The 30-day and in hospital mortality were 0 and no difference for 90-day mortality (P = 0.116). The postoperative stay was shorter in MIE group, 14 days and 18 days in the MIE and OE groups(P &lt; 0.001). The OS at 32 months was 76.82% and 64.31% in the MIE and OE groups (P = 0.001); hazard ratio(HR) (95% CI): 2.333 (1.384–3.913). Conclusion These results showed the McKeown-MIE group was associated with a better long-term survival, compared with open-MIE for patients with resectable EC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document