PS01.176: OPEN VERSUS HYBRID VERSUS MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR PATIENTS WITH ESOPHAGEAL CANCER: A PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHED ANALYSIS

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 99-100
Author(s):  
Els Visser ◽  
David Edholm ◽  
Mark Smithers ◽  
Janine Thomas ◽  
Sandra Brosda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Survival Data ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
Respiratory Complications ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy

Abstract Background MIE is becoming more common and is considered safe. There are few studies supporting laparoscopy in favor of laparotomy for the abdominal part of a three-field esophagectomy and long term survival data are scarce. The objective was to compare open esophagectomy (OE), with hybdrid thoracoscopic-laparotomic esophagectomy (HMIE) and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with regard to surgical outcomes, postoperative complications and survival. Methods A prospective database of esophageal resection for cancer at a single centre identified 243 OE, 688 HMIE and 80 MIE procedures. Propensity scores were used to match 80 patients in each group adjusting for age, gender, weight, clinical stage, neoadjuvant treatment, and year of surgery. Results Respiratory complications were more common after OE (49%) than after MIE (31%, P = 0.02). Median operative time was longer for MIE (330 minutes) versus HMIE or OE (both 300 minutes, P < 0.001). Median length of stay was shorter following MIE (12 days) compared with HMIE (14 days) and OE (15 days), P = 0.001. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to other complications, median number of lymph nodes examined (22–23 for all groups), or R0 resection rate (range 85–91%) for all groups. There was no difference in 5-year overall survival between groups. Conclusion Compared with OE and HMIE, MIE was associated with shorter length of stay and fewer respiratory complications, but longer operative time. Thus, there may be additional benefit for MIE without comprising oncological outcomes. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

PS01.225: SINGLE HOLE PNEUMOPERITONEUM COMBINED WITH LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL MASTECTOMY FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 114-114
Author(s):  
Hua Tang ◽  
Kenan Huang ◽  
Xinyu Ding ◽  
Bin Wu ◽  
Zhifei Xu
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Single Port ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Radical Mastectomy ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Laparoscopic Esophagectomy

Abstract Background Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been an alternative treatment for esophageal cancer. The objective of this study is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of single-port CO2-inflatabled mediastinoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Methods Retrospective analysis of clinical data was performed on 12 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent a single-port CO2-inflatabled mediastinoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy by one surgical team in Shanghai Changzheng hospital. Recorded outcome measures included operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and perioperative complications. Results No perioperative mortality, pulmonary infection, arrhythmia, recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) palsy and thoracic duct injury was observed in all patients. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss and pressure of CO2 was (219 ± 9.3)min, (26.3 ± 2.7)ml and (50.5 ± 4.6)mmHg. The mean number of dissected thoracic lymph nodes was 19 ± 1.5. One patient was converted to open surgery because of massive bleeding intraoperation. Two patients occurred postoperative anastomotic leakage. Conclusion A single-port CO2-inflatabled mediastinoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy provides safe and feasible approach to minimally invasive esophagectomy for patients with early esophageal cancer. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

scholarly journals RAMIE: tradition drives innovation—feasibility of a robotic-assisted intra-thoracic anastomosis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Giacopuzzi ◽  
Jacopo Weindelmayer ◽  
Giovanni de Manzoni
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Circular Stapler ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Robotic Hand ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Hybrid Techniques ◽  
End To End

AbstractDue to the difficulties in the intra-thoracic esophagogastric anastomosis creation, totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIE) did not encountered a large diffusion, preferring hybrid techniques or cervical anastomosis. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has gained popularity due to an easy reproducibility of the open anastomotic technique. In this feasibility study, we described the RAMIE technique introduced in our Center, providing innovative details for a mechanical end-to-end anastomosis. With patient in prone position, esophagectomy is conducted through the meso-esophagus plan. Robotic hand-sewn purse-string is realized above Azygos vein. A 4-cm thoracotomy in the fifth intercostal space is performed by enlarging the trocar incision. The tubulization is performed to create an access pouch for the introduction of the circular stapler. After the creation of the end-to-end anastomosis, the access pouch is resected and a robotic over-sewn is realized. From January 2020 until July 2020, ten patients were enrolled. No restriction in term of age, BMI, ASA grade or previous surgery were applied. Median operative time was 700 min. R0 resection was achieved in all cases with a good lymph node harvesting. No anastomotic leak or stricture were observed. One chyle leak was treated conservatively. Median length of stay was 8 days and 90 days mortality was 0%. This study evidenced how robotic surgery allowed us to perform the same anastomosis of our open technique with good oncological results and morbidity and length of stay comparable with our previous results. Of note, longer operative time has been recorded. Further studies after the completion of the learning curve are necessary to address more definite conclusions.

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.

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 &lt; 0.001), blood loss (weighted mean differences [WMD] –108.97, 95% CI –166.35 to −51.59 mL, P &lt; 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 &lt; 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.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Respiratory Complications ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Video Tutorial ◽  
Complex Procedure ◽  
Resectable Esophageal ◽  
Resectable Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Invasive Techniques

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly becoming the surgical treatment of choice for esophageal cancer. The goal of this technique is to reduce the rate of respiratory complications associated with thoracotomy while taking advantage of the benefits of reduced mortality associated with minimally invasive techniques. However, minimally invasive esophagectomy is still not considered the gold standard for resectable esophageal cancer worldwide because it is a highly technical and complex procedure. The goal of this video tutorial is to present an easy step-by-step approach to a minimally invasive esophagectomy and to address technical considerations and potential pitfalls.

PS01.212: OUTCOMES OF HYBRID VERSUS FULLY MINIMALLY INVASIVE 2-STAGE ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR CANCER OF THE DISTAL ESOPHAGUS AND GASTRO-ESOPHAGEAL JUNCTION

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 110-110
Author(s):  
Kanatheepan Shanmuganathan ◽  
Temisanren Akitikori ◽  
Oluwasunmisola Soile ◽  
Aadil Hussain ◽  
Neda Farhangmehr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Anastomotic Leak ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Leak Rate ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Cardiac Complications ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Anastomotic Leak Rate

Abstract Background Esophagectomy is associated with high complication rate and mortality. Numerous approaches have been introduced over the last two decades, with the ambition of reducing rate of complications, morbidity and mortality. Two-stage minimally invasive esophagectomies include hybrid (laparoscopic/thoracotomic) and fully minimally invasive and have recently gained popularity in the treatment of distal esophageal and gastro-esophageal junction cancer. We aim to compare the short-term outcomes between 2-stage hybrid and fully minimally invasive esophagectomy with intrathoracic hand-sewn anastomosis. Methods A retrospective analysis of a 4-year period prospectively collected data of 100 consecutive 2-stage minimally invasive esophagectomies was conducted. All operations were performed in a UK tertiary centre by a single surgical team between 2014 and 2018. All 3-stage and open esophagectomies were excluded from the study. A comparison of anastomotic leak rate, ITU length of stay, hospital length of stay, pulmonary complications, cardiac complications and 30 and 90-day mortality rates was made. Statistical analysis was performed using Graph-Prism 7.04. Results Seventy patients underwent hybrid and 30 underwent fully minimally invasive esophagectomy with intra-thoracic manual anastomosis. Chest infection and anastomotic leak rate were higher in the hybrid group (21.4% vs 16.8% and 10% vs 3.3%); however, cardiac complications were two times more common in fully minimally invasive compared to hybrid esophagectomies (3.3% vs 1.4%). Fully minimally invasive esophagectomies were associated with a shorter ITU stay as well as hospital length of stay compared to hybrid esophagectomies (5.5 vs 6.2 days, P = 0.47 and 10.5 vs 15.6 days P = 0.0018). Complete tumour resection (R0) rate was slightly higher in hybrid compared to fully minimally invasive esophagectomies (70.8% vs 64.3%). Thirty and 90-day mortality rate was 6.67% (1 cardiac and 1 respiratory arrest) in fully minimally invasive and 1.43% in hybrid esophagectomies. None of the mortality cases were related to surgical complications like anastomotic leak or conduit necrosis. Conclusion In our study 2-stage fully minimally invasive esophagectomy is associated with reduced post-operative complication rates compared to 2-stage hybrid oesophagectomy. Further larger studies are needed to assess the 30- and 90-day mortality risk associated with both procedures. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document