PS01.159: THE IMPROVED POSTOPERATIVE RECOVERY OUTCOMES FROM MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 94-94
Author(s):  
Xiaobin Zhang ◽  
Zhigang Li
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Anastomotic Leakage ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Postoperative Recovery ◽  
Open Group ◽  
Recurrent Nerve ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Open Esophagectomy

Abstract Background The minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been developed in the past three decades. In our institution, the MIE was first introduced in 2012, and the proportion of MIE was used for over 70% in 2016–2017. This study aimed to compare the postoperative recovery outcomes between MIE and open esophagectomy in different period. Methods A total of 725 patients were enrolled in this study including 248 patients who underwent open esophagectomy within 2012–2013 and 477 patients who underwent MIE within 2016–2017. All patients received McKeown esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy. And the perioperative complications were recorded according to the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) complication definitions. Results There was no statistically difference between OPEN and MIE groups with regard to preoperative characters except for age (60.8 ± 7.2 vs. 62.7 ± 7.7, P < 0.001) and body mass index (22.4 ± 3.0 vs. 23.1 ± 3.0, P = 0.002). One (0.2%) patient in the MIE group died within 90 days from anastomotic leakage, compared to 6 (2.4%) patients in the OPEN group (P = 0.004). The length of hospital stay was shorter in the MIE group (11 range 6–131 days, vs. 15 range 9–164 days, P < 0.001). The MIE group was in favor of lower complications (32.3% vs. 46.4%, P < 0.001). Pneumonia was the most common complications in both groups (12.6% in MIE vs. 27.4% in OPEN, P < 0.001). 15 (3.1%) patients in the MIE group experienced atrial arrhythmias compared with 30 (12.1%) in the OPEN group (P < 0.001). Lower anastomotic leakage was noted in the MIE group (11.5% vs. 25.4%, P < 0.001), as well as the wound infection (0.2% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.001), than in the OPEN group. The recurrent nerve injury was higher in the MIE group (11.7% vs. 6.5%, P = 0.024) but with more lymph nodes dissection along the recurrent laryngeal nerve (3.8 ± 2.8 vs. 1.4 ± 2.0, P < 0.001). Conclusion The MIE was associated with better postoperative recovery outcomes and lower mortality. MIE technique should be considered as the mainstay surgical treatment for esophageal cancer in the current and future period. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

PS02.023: SINGLE-INCISION MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR TREATING ESOPHAGEAL CANCER

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 126-126
Author(s):  
Jang-Ming Lee ◽  
Sunn-Mao Yang ◽  
Pei-Ming Huang
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Anastomotic Leakage ◽  
Single Incision ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Vocal Cord Palsy ◽  
Pulmonary Complications ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Matched Comparison

Abstract Background Single-incision throacoscopic and laparoscopic procedure has been applied to treating various diseases. In the current study, we applied this novel surgical technique in the minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Methods Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with single-port approach in the thoracoscopic and laparoscopic procedures was attempted for patients with esophageal cancer. Patients with esophageal cancer who underwent MIE from 2006 to 2016 were evaluated. A 3–4 cm incision was created both in the thoracoscopic and the laparoscopic phases during the single-incision MIE procedures. A propensity-matched comparison was made between the two groups of patients with single-incision and multi-incision MIE. Results We analyzed a total of 48 pairs of patients with propensity-matched from the cohort of 360 patients undergoing MIE during 2006–2015. There were 12 patients having postoperative complications (25%), including 4 (8.3%) of anastomotic leakage one (2.1%) of pulmonary complications and 3 (6.3%) with vocal cord palsy in the patients undergoing single-incision MIE (SIMIE). There is no statistical difference in terms of postoperative ICU and hospital stay, number of dissected lymph nodes and presence of major surgical complications (anastomotic leakage and pulmonary complications) between the two groups of patients. The pain score one week after surgery was significantly lower in the single-incision group (P < 0.05). There was no surgical mortality in the single-incision MIE group. Conclusion Minimally invasive esophogectomy performed with a single-incision approach is feasible for treating patients with esophageal cancer, with a comparable perioperative outcome with that of multi-incision approaches. The postoperative pain one week after surgery was significantly reduced in patients undergoing single-incision MIE. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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.

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.

PS02.250: PREEMPTIVE ENDOSCOPIC VACUUM DRAINAGE TO PREVENT ANASTOMOTIC LEAKAGE IN UPPER-GI SURGERY: A GAME-CHANGING TECHNOLOGY?

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 194-194
Author(s):  
Henner M Schmidt ◽  
Diana Vetter ◽  
Christoph Gubler ◽  
Piero Valli ◽  
Bernhard Morell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Gastric Surgery ◽  
Safe Procedure ◽  
Comprehensive Complication Index ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Upper Gi ◽  
Primary Endpoints

Abstract Background Anastomotic leak (AL) remains a major cause of morbidity in upper-GI surgery. In many centers, endoluminal vacuum drainage (EVD) has become the mainstay of therapy for AL after esophageal and gastric resections. A new idea is to use the EVD technology in a preemptive setting. In this context, we present a case series of patients that received PEVD upon completion of the anastomosis during esophago-gastric surgery. Methods Intraoperative PEVD was performed in 10 consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy with cervical (n = 1) or high intrathoracic (n = 6) anastomosis, and open transhiatally extended (n = 1) or minimally invasive (n = 2) total gastrectomy. The EVD device was removed after three to six (mean 4) days, and the anastomosis was endoscopically inspected for ischemia and AL. Additional contrast radiography, computed tomography, or gastroscopy to exclude AL was performed in seven patients. Primary endpoints in this retrospective series was AL; secondary endpoints were the postoperative morbidity measured by the Clavien-Dindo (CD) classification and the comprehensive complication index (CCI), all at 30 days after surgery. Results Perioperative mortality was 0% with uneventful anastomotic healing in all patients of this series (AL rate 0%, anastomotic stenosis 0%). There were no adverse events attributable to PEVD. None of the patients experienced major morbidity (> CD grade IIIa) during the postoperative course. The median postoperative ICU and hospital stay was 1 (IQR 1-1.75) and 14 (IQR 12-16) days, respectively. Five patients (50%) developed at least one complication, mostly related to infection (2 patients) and pulmonary events (2 patients). The mean CCI at 30 days after surgery was 13.7 (range 0-39.5). Conclusion PEVD appears to be a safe procedure that may emerge as a groundbreaking technology in patients undergoing esophageal or gastric resection. Further research is needed to elucidate the true potential of this technique. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

PS01.219: SINGLE-PORT THORACOSCOPIC MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 112-112
Author(s):  
Yong Yuan
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Single Port ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Surgical Instruments ◽  
Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy ◽  
Invasive Technique ◽  
Invasive Approach ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy

Abstract Background This study was conducted to optimize the surgical procedures for single-port thoracoscopic esophagectomy, and to explore its potential advantages over multi-port minimally invasive esophagectomy. Methods For single-port thoracoscopic esophagectomy, the patient was placed in left lateral-prone position and a 4-cm incision through the 4th-5th intercostal space was taken on the postaxillary line. The 10-mm camera and two or three surgical instruments were used for the VATS esophagectomy and radical mediastinal lymph node dissection. The camera position was different for the upper and lower mediastinal regions. Mobilization of stomach was conducted via multiple-port laparoscopic approach. Cervical end-to-side anastomosis was completed by hand-sewn procedures.A propensity-matched comparison was made between the single-port and four-port thoracoscopic esophagectomy groups. Results From 2014 to 2016, 56 matched patients were analyzed. There was no conversion to open surgery or operative mortality. The use of single-port thoracoscopic esophagectomy increased the length of operation time in comparison with using multiple-port minimally invasive technique (mean, 257 vs. 216 min, P = 0.026). The time taken for thoracic procedure in the single-port group was significant longer that in the multi-port group (mean, 126 vs. 84 min, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between groups in the number of lymph nodes dissected, blood loss, complications or hospital stay (P > 0.05). In single-port thoracoscopic group, the pain in the abdomen was more severe than that in the chest (P = 0.042). The pain scores for postoperative day 1 and day 7 were significantly lower in the single-port group as compared with multiple-port group (P = 0.038 and P < 0.001), a similar trend could be seen for the pain score on postoperative day 3 (P = 0.058). Conclusion Single-port thoracoscopic esophagectomy contributes to reducing postoperative pain with an acceptable increase of operation time, which does not compromise surgical radicality and has similar short-term postoperative outcomes when compared with multiple-port minimally invasive approach. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document