PS02.234: POSTOPERATIVE PNEUMONIA AFTER ESOPHAGEAL RESECTION: DO WE NEED PROPHYLCATIC ANTIBIOTICS FOR PREVENTION?

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 188-188
Author(s):  
Tina Maghsoudi ◽  
Anke Wilhelm ◽  
Michael Beumer ◽  
Karl Oldhafer
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotic ◽  
Esophageal Resection ◽  
Minimal Invasive ◽  
Pulmonary Complications ◽  
Postoperative Pneumonia ◽  
Single Shot ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy

Abstract Background Postoperative pulmonary complications are a common course of serious morbidity after esophageal resection. In literature rates of pneumonia are quoted up to 38%. Recent studies showed that minimally invasive esophagectomy could reduce this to 9 to 15%, but is this the only approach to lower the incidence of postoperative pneumonia? Methods We analysed our data from esophagectomies performed in our department between 2014 to 2017. Only procedures with thoracotomy due to malignancies were included. All patients received a single shot dose of piperacillin/tazobactam repeated after 4 hours during operation. Bronchoscopy was performed intraoperatively with bronchial toilet. Patients at risk (COPD or viscous secretion) recieved antibiotics for further 7 days. If postoperatively elevation of CRP or leucocytes ocurred, thorax CT scan was performed. Only when pulmonary infiltrates were visible pneumonia was diagnosed. Results 151 operations due to esophageal cancer were performed. Extended gastrectomies, minimal invasive esophagectomies with thoracoscopy and transhiatal resections were excluded. Only Ivor-Lewis resectios (108), McKeown resections (8) and colon interpositions (2) were analysed. The all over pneumonia rate was 13,6% (16 patients). The 30 day mortality was 2,5%. None of the patients died due to pneumonia. Conclusion To reduce postoperative pneumonia rates is an important aim in esophageal surgery. Latest data showed that minimally invasive surgery is adequate to achieve this. But not every patient is suitable for this procedure. From our single center experience we could show that also intraopereative bronchial toilet together with prophylactic antibiotic therapy could achieve good results. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

PS01.232: SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES OF ROBOT-ASSISTED MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 115-116
Author(s):  
Haiqi He ◽  
Junke Fu ◽  
Guangjian Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Pulmonary Complications ◽  
Invasive Technique ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Robotic Esophagectomy ◽  
Laparoscopic Esophagectomy

Abstract Background Surgical resection with radical lymphadenectomy is a pivotal component in the multidisciplinary therapy of esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy was shown to be effective in reducing the morbidity and was adopted increasingly. As a novel minimally invasive technique, robot-assisted esophagectomy remains in the initial stage ofapplication. This study describes the single-institution experience of robotic esophagectomy. Methods Between March 2016 and October 2017, 20 consecutive patients underwent robot assisted esophagectomy at our institute. The thoracic and abdominal mobilization were all performed with the assistance of the robot. We retrospectively collected the operative data and postoperative outcomes. Results The majority of patients were male (80%), and the median age was 62 years. The average operative time was 342 minutes (range 280–440). The average blood loss was 112 ml (range 50–400). No patient experienced conversion to a thoracotomy or laparotomy. R0 resection was achieved in all patients, the mean number of dissected lymph nodes was 19 (range 8–32). No 90-day operative mortality was observed, and postoperative complications were present in 8 of 20 patients (40.0%). Pulmonary complications were the most common event and were observed in 3 patients. Two patients experienced an anastomotic leak. Conclusion Our study demonstrated that robot-assisted esophagectomy is a safe and technically feasible alternative to conventional thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

PS02.012: AN IMPORTANT COMPLICATION OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMIES: HIATAL HERNIA

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 123-123
Author(s):  
Atila Eroglu ◽  
Yener Aydin ◽  
Ali Ulas ◽  
Coskun Daharli
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Hiatal Hernia ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Esophageal Resection ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Background Development of hiatal hernia after esophageal resection is a known complication. However, due to the spread of minimally invasive esophagectomy, complications of hiatal hernia seems to increase. This study aimed to present our cases with hiatal hernia after Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy. Methods After Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy, five cases of hiatal hernia were observed. Patients' age, sex, symptoms, diagnosis, herniated organs, surgical method, morbidity and mortality rates and hospital stay were reviewed. Results Three of the patients were male and two were female. The mean age of the patients was 56.2 years (35–71 years). Hiatal hernia was detected after an average of 1.4 years with minimal invasive esophagectomies (5 months, 1 year, 1 year, 18 months and 3 years respectively). Three of the cases were symptomatic and two cases were asymptomatic. Thorax CT was used in all cases, and two cases were additionally imaged with barium esophagography. Herniated organs were: omentum in 5 cases, transverse colon in 4 cases, small bowel in two cases. All cases were laparoscopically approached. Diaphragmatic defects were repaired using nonabsorbable sutures in all cases. No complication and mortality was observed in patients. The mean length of hospital stay was 4.9 days (range, 3 to 10 days). Conclusion Hiatal hernia is more frequently seen in minimally invasive esophagectomies than open esophagectomies. Patients undergoing minimal esophagectomy should be closely monitored for hiatal hernia postoperatively. These cases can also be treated by minimally invasive laparoscopy. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

FA04.04: IMPORTANT STEPS AND FIRST RESULTS OF FULLY ROBOTIC IVOR-LEWIS ESOPHAGEAL RESECTION (RAMIE4) FOR ESOPHAGEAL AND ESOPHAGOGASTRIC JUNCTION CANCER

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 8-9
Author(s):  
Peter Grimminger ◽  
Edin Hadzijusufovic ◽  
Benjamin Babic ◽  
Florian Matthias Corvinus ◽  
Hauke Lang
Keyword(s):  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Esophageal Resection ◽  
Minimal Invasive ◽  
Robotic Arms ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
First Results ◽  
Future Potential

Abstract Background Robotic-assisted surgery is increasing, especially in general tumor surgery. Minimal-invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is commonly the standard operation procedure in high-volume centers. Also the fully robotic minimally invasive esophagectomy using 4 robotic arms in the abdomen and thorax (RAMIE4) is performed more frequent. The advantages of RAMIE4 as well as advantages and disadvantages of special steps in the procedure and reconstruction are not clear so far and are under comparison with other MIE techniques. Methods Form January 2017 until March 2018 we prospectively collect the first 50 fully robotic RAMIE4 cases performed by one specialized surgeon and additionally the 50 MIE cases performed by the same surgeon between 2016 and 2017. Results At the meeting we will present our RAMIE4 results of the first 50 cases operated by one specialized surgeon and compare those results with the 50 MIE cases of the same surgeon. Additionally essential steps of the RAMIE4 procedure will be presented. Conclusion In our opinion RAMIE4 is feasible and offers great potential, especially for lymph node dissection, surgical precision, future potential, teaching and advanced ergonomics. The overall advantages have to be proven in randomized trials by specialized surgeons in MIE and RAMIE. 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.

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.

PS01.159: 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.

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.

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