scholarly journals Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Frans van Workum ◽  
Bastiaan R Klarenbeek ◽  
Nikolaj Baranov ◽  
Maroeska M Rovers ◽  
Camiel Rosman
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Leakage Rate ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Lymph Node Count ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Node Count

Summary Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing HMIE with TMIE. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles comparing HMIE and TMIE were included. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. The primary outcome was pneumonia. Sensitivity analysis was performed by analyzing outcome for open chest hybrid MIE versus total TMIE and open abdomen MIE versus TMIE separately. Therefore, subgroup analysis was performed for laparoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, thoracoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, Ivor Lewis HMIE versus Ivor Lewis TMIE, and McKeown HMIE versus McKeown TMIE. There were no randomized controlled trials. Twenty-nine studies with a total of 3732 patients were included. Studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. In the main analysis, the pooled incidence of pneumonia was 19.0% after HMIE and 9.8% after TMIE which was not significantly different between the groups (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97–2.20). TMIE was associated with a lower incidence of wound infections (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.13–2.90) and less blood loss (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.34–1.22) but with longer operative time (SMD:-0.33, 95% CI: −0.59—-0.08). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy-assisted HMIE was associated with a higher lymph node count than TMIE, and Ivor Lewis HMIE was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate than Ivor Lewis TMIE. In general, TMIE was associated with moderately lower morbidity compared to HMIE, but randomized controlled evidence is lacking. The higher leakage rate and lower lymph node count that was found after TMIE in sensitivity analysis indicate that TMIE can also have disadvantages. The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully by surgeons when moving from HMIE to TMIE.

382 INTRATHORACIC VERSUS CERVICAL ANASTOMOSIS AFTER MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR OESOPHAGEAL CANCER: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (ICAN TRIAL)

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Moniek Verstegen ◽  
Frans Workum ◽  
Bastiaan Klarenbeek ◽  
Stefan Bouwense ◽  
Suzanne Gisbertz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Robust Evidence

Abstract   Robust evidence is lacking whether Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) or McKeown MIE should be preferred for patients with mid to distal esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction Siewert I-II (GEJ) cancer. Methods In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, patients with esophageal (below the level of the carina) or GEJ cancer planned for curative resection were recruited. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either Ivor Lewis MIE or McKeown MIE. The primary endpoint was anastomotic leakage (AL) requiring endoscopic, radiologic or surgical intervention. Secondary outcome parameters were overall AL rate, postoperative complications, length of stay and mortality. Results A total of 262 patients were randomly assigned to Ivor Lewis MIE (n = 130) or McKeown MIE (n = 132). Seventeen patients were excluded due to not meeting inclusion criteria (n = 2), physical unfitness for surgery (n = 3), patients’ choice (n = 3), interval metastases (n = 5) or peroperative metastases (n = 4). AL necessitating reintervention occurred in 15 (12.3%) of 122 patients after Ivor Lewis MIE and in 39 (31.7%) of 123 patients after McKeown MIE (RR 0.39, 95%CI 0.22–0.65). Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3b) were observed in 10.7% after Ivor Lewis MIE and in 22.0% after McKeown MIE (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25–0.88). Conclusion This study provides evidence for a lower rate of AL requiring reintervention after Ivor Lewis MIE compared to McKeown MIE for patients with mid to distal esophageal or GEJ cancer.

Intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A randomized controlled trial.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4509-4509
Author(s):  
Moniek Verstegen ◽  
Frans van Workum ◽  
Bastiaan Klarenbeek ◽  
Suzanne Gisbertz ◽  
Gerjon Hannink ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

4509 Background: Robust evidence is lacking whether Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) or McKeown MIE should be preferred for patients with mid to distal esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction Siewert I-II (GEJ) cancer. Methods: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, patients with esophageal (below the level of the carina) or GEJ cancer planned for curative resection were recruited. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either Ivor Lewis MIE or McKeown MIE. The primary endpoint was anastomotic leakage (AL) requiring endoscopic, radiologic or surgical intervention. Secondary outcome parameters were overall AL rate, postoperative complications, length of stay and mortality. Results: A total of 262 patients were randomly assigned to Ivor Lewis MIE (n = 130) or McKeown MIE (n = 132). Seventeen patients were excluded from the trial due to not meeting inclusion criteria (n = 2), physical unfitness for surgery (n = 3), patients’ choice (n = 3), interval metastases (n = 5) or peroperative metastases (n = 4). AL necessitating reintervention occurred in 15 (12.3%) of 122 patients after Ivor Lewis MIE and in 39 (31.7%) of 123 patients after McKeown MIE (relative risk 0.39, 95% CI 0.22-0.65; risk difference 19.4%, 95% CI 7.9%-31.8%). Overall AL rate was 12.3% after Ivor Lewis MIE and 34.1% after McKeown MIE. Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3b) were observed in 10.7% after Ivor Lewis MIE and in 22.0% after McKeown MIE. Pleural effusion requiring drainage occurred in 9.8% of patients after Ivor Lewis MIE and 21.1% of patients after McKeown MIE. RLN palsy rate was 0% after Ivor Lewis MIE and 7.3% after McKeown MIE. Median length of hospital stay was 10 days (IQR 8 – 15 days) after Ivor Lewis MIE and 12 days (IQR 9 – 18 days) after McKeown MIE. ICU length of stay and mortality rates were comparable between groups. Conclusions: These findings provide evidence for a lower rate of AL requiring reintervention after Ivor Lewis MIE compared to McKeown MIE for patients with mid to distal esophageal or GEJ cancer. Clinical trial information: NTR4333 .

scholarly journals McKeown or Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 1518-1527
Author(s):  
Jingpu Wang ◽  
Jingfeng Hu ◽  
Dengyan Zhu ◽  
Kankan Wang ◽  
Chunzhi Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy

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

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.

scholarly journals Robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: Ivor-Lewis approach

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 21-21
Author(s):  
Kelsey Musgrove ◽  
Charlotte R. Spear ◽  
Jahnavi Kakuturu ◽  
Britney R. Harris ◽  
Fazil Abbas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy in the prone versus lateral decubitus position: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitrios Schizas ◽  
Dimitrios Papaconstantinou ◽  
Anastasia Krompa ◽  
Antonios Athanasiou ◽  
Tania Triantafyllou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lateral Decubitus Position ◽  
Prone Positioning ◽  
Respiratory Complications ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Postoperative Respiratory Complications ◽  
Lateral Decubitus

Abstract The thoracic phase of minimally invasive esophagectomy was initially performed in the lateral decubitus position (LDP); however, many experts have gradually transitioned to a prone position (PP) approach. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to quantitatively compare the two approaches. A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, Web of Knowledge, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was undertaken for studies comparing outcomes between patients undergoing minimally invasive esophageal surgery in the PP versus the LDP. In total, 15 studies with 1454 patients (PP; n = 710 vs. LDP; n = 744) were included. Minimally invasive esophagectomy in the PP provides statistically significant reduction in postoperative respiratory complications (Risk ratios 0.5, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.34–0.76, P < 0.001), blood loss (weighted mean differences [WMD] –108.97, 95% CI –166.35 to −51.59 mL, P < 0.001), ICU stay (WMD –0.96, 95% CI –1.7 to −0.21 days, P = 0.01) and total hospital stay (WMD –2.96, 95% CI –5.14 to −0.78 days, P = 0.008). In addition, prone positioning increases the overall yield of chest lymph node dissection (WMD 2.94, 95% CI 1.54–4.34 lymph nodes, P < 0.001). No statistically significant difference in regards to anastomotic leak rate, mortality and 5-year overall survival was encountered. Subgroup analysis revealed that the protective effect of prone positioning against pulmonary complications was more pronounced for patients undergoing single-lumen tracheal intubation. A head to head comparison of minimally invasive esophagectomy in the prone versus the LDP reveals superiority of the former method, with emphasis on the reduction of postoperative respiratory complications and reduced length of hospitalization. Long-term oncologic outcomes appear equivalent, although validation through prospective studies and randomized controlled trials is still necessary.

Intraoperative Lipid-Rich Nutrition in the Detection of Chylothorax in Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 545-550
Author(s):  
Merel Lubbers ◽  
Marc J. van Det ◽  
Ewout A. Kouwenhoven
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Thoracic Duct ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Historical Cohort ◽  
Feeding Jejunostomy ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Rich Solution ◽  
Group A

Background. Chylothorax is a rare but severe complication after esophagectomy with an incidence of 1.9% to 8.9%. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of intraoperative lipid-rich feeding in reducing the incidence of post-esophagectomy chylothorax. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was performed among patients who underwent totally minimally invasive esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis (tMIE Ivor Lewis) from February 2015 until December 2016. In this group, a lipid-rich solution was administered intraoperatively via a feeding jejunostomy. A historical cohort of identical patients operated in the period December 2012 to February 2015 did not receive intraoperative feeding and was used as a control. Results. In total, 133 patients underwent tMIE Ivor Lewis, of whom 59 patients (44%) received lipid-rich solution intraoperatively. The administered median total volume was 800 mL. During thoracic dissection, the thoracic duct was clearly visible in 37 patients (63%). With the help of lipid-rich feeding, intraoperative unintended duct damage was detected in 3 patients and treated. Postoperatively, 1 out of 59 patients (1.7%) developed chylothorax that was managed nonoperatively. In the control group, chylothorax was seen in 3 out of 74 patients (4.1%), P = .629. Conclusions. Intraoperative lipid-rich solution through a feeding jejunostomy helps identify thoracic duct damage during tMIE and may reduce postoperative chylothorax.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document