O102 FINDING FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH SAFE IMPLEMENTATION OF IVOR LEWIS TOTALLY MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Linda Claassen ◽  
Frans van Workum ◽  
Maroeska M Rovers ◽  
Gerjon Hannink ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Anastomotic Leakage ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Learning Curves ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Surgeon Experience ◽  
Efficient Learning

Abstract Aim To define factors associated with more efficient learning after implementation of Ivor Lewis totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE). Background and Methods It is unknown which factors are associated with more efficient learning after implementation of Ivor Lewis TMIE. Prospectively collected data of 15 European expert centers are retrospectively analyzed. Consecutive patients undergoing Ivor Lewis TMIE are included. The primary outcome is anastomotic leakage and the secondary outcome is textbook outcome (TBO). The pre-defined level of acceptance for anastomotic leakage is set at 8% with a 5% margin. Trends in outcome parameters are plotted using weighted moving average to define when the pre-defined level of acceptance is reached. Outcome trends are compared between groups of hospitals for the following factors: hospital volume, surgeon experience, overall TMIE experience, expert clinic visit, Ivor Lewis TMIE course followed and Ivor Lewis TMIE proctor supervision during implementation. Results This study included 1718 patients. Hospitals with a volume >50 cases per year reached the pre-defined level of acceptance for anastomotic leakage at case 114, hospitals with a volume <50 cases did not reach the pre-defined level of acceptance. Hospitals with surgeon experience >10 years and <10 years reached the pre-defined level of acceptance at case 112 and 135, respectively. Hospitals with overall TMIE experience >50 cases and <50 cases reached the pre-defined level of acceptance at case 45 and 112, respectively. Visiting an expert clinic, followed a TMIE course, or implementation under a proctor’s supervision did not contribute to reaching the level of acceptance earlier. Conclusion Learning curves are shorter and the level of acceptance is reached earlier if Ivor Lewis TMIE is implemented in a high-volume hospital, if the procedure is implemented in a hospital with a surgeon with >10 years of experience, or if the surgeon has experience in other types of TMIE of >50 cases. These findings can inform surgeons and can contribute to formulate evidence-based training programs.

scholarly journals Learning Curves of Ivor Lewis Totally Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy by Hospital and Surgeon Characteristics

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Claassen ◽  
Gerjon Hannink ◽  
Misha D. P. Luyer ◽  
Alan P. Ainsworth ◽  
Mark I. van Berge Henegouwen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Learning Curves ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy

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.

Two-Stage Indicators to Assess Learning Curves for Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy

2016 ◽  
Vol 66 (05) ◽  
pp. 362-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qi Wang ◽  
Zixiang Wu ◽  
Gang Chen ◽  
Sai Zhang ◽  
Gang Shen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Learning Curve ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Learning Curves ◽  
Differential Analysis ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Three Phase ◽  
Relevant Variables ◽  
General Competence

Background Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) Ivor Lewis has been increasingly performed over the last two decades. To guide the implementation of this technically demanding procedure, a comprehensive assessment of MIE-Ivor Lewis learning curves should include both the general competence to accomplish the procedure and the ability to generate oncological benefits. These objectives are believed to be associated with different phases of the learning curve. Methods A retrospective review of the first 109 patients who underwent MIE-Ivor Lewis by a single qualified surgeon was conducted. Relevant variables were collected and assessed by regression analysis to identify suitable indicators for patient stratification and learning curve assessment. Thereafter, the differential analysis was performed among groups to validate the learning curve model. Results Two variables, intrathoracic gastroesophageal anastomosis time and bilateral recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) lymphadenectomy number, which plateaued, respectively, after the 26th and 88th cases, were selected as meaningful indicators to identify different competence levels. Therefore, 109 patients were chronologically subcategorized into three groups (the first 26 MIEs as the early group, the next 62 cases as the middle group, and 21 most recent cases as the late group). Perioperative data were compared between groups with positive results to indicate a three-phase model for a learning curve for MIE-Ivor Lewis. Conclusions An MIE-Ivor Lewis learning curve should include three discrete phases that indicate, successively, unskilled operation (general competence to accomplish, less proficiency), surgical proficiency, and oncological efficacy. Intrathoracic anastomosis time and bilateral RLN lymphadenectomy were identified as suitable indicators delineate the different stages of an MIE-Ivor Lewis learning curve.

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 .

The Comparisons of Three Stapler Placement Methods for Intrathoracic Mechanistic Circular Stapling in Ivor Lewis Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo Zhang ◽  
Zi xiang Wu ◽  
Qi Wang ◽  
Sai Bo Pan ◽  
Lian Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Anastomotic Leakage ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Esophageal Reconstruction ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Anastomotic Complications ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Objectives: To analyze the impact of the reversal penetrating technique (RPT) for intrathoracic gastroesophageal mechanical anastomosis on the development of anastomotic complications in Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy (ILMIE) and further identify the risk factors for the development of anastomotic leakage and stricture.Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted using clinical data of 316 patients with esophageal carcinoma (EC) who underwent ILMIE from January 2012 to December 2019. The participants were divided into three groups of RPT, transoral Orvil technique (TOT), or purse-string technique (PST) according to the different stapler placenent methods for intrathoracic mechanistic circular stapling. Multivariable analysis was performed to investigate the association of risk factors with anastomotic leakage and stricture.Results: There were 154 patients with RPT, 78 with TOT and 84 with PST intrathoracic gastroesophageal circular stapling in ILMIE. There was no differences in intraoperative anastomosis related conditions inclouding conversion of open operations, ways of esophageal reconstruction, lymph nodes harvested between the three groups. Whereas, The mean total operative time, and gastroesophageal anastomosis time in the RPT group were significantly shorter than those in other groups (both p<0.05). The rates of anastomotic leakage and stricture showed no statistical differences between three groups, respectively (Leakage: p=0.941; Stricture: p=0.942). Multivariate analysis revealed that the PRT method of the anvil placement does not increase the probability of anastomotic leakage (PRT: reference; TOT: odds ratio(OR) 2.845, P=0.255; PST: OR 2.234, p=0.242) and stricture (PRT: reference; TOT: OR 1.976, P=0.556; PST: OR 1.872, p=0.284).Conclusions: The PRT method of the anvil placement for intrathoracic gastroesophageal circular stapling does not increase the risk of anastomotic complications in ILMIE, but had significantly shorter surgical time and anastomosis time.

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.

Survival and quality of life after minimally invasive esophagectomy: a single-surgeon experience

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 168-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abhishek Sundaram ◽  
Juan C. Geronimo ◽  
Brittany L. Willer ◽  
Masato Hoshino ◽  
Zachary Torgersen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Surgeon Experience
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document