Minimally Invasive and Robotic Esophagectomy

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 391-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raghav A. Murthy ◽  
Nicholas S. Clarke ◽  
Kemp H. Kernstine
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Esophageal Resection ◽  
Esophageal Disease ◽  
High Morbidity ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Transhiatal Approach ◽  
Minimally Invasive Surgical ◽  
Robotic Esophagectomy

Great advances have been made in the surgical management of esophageal disease since the first description of esophageal resection in 1913. We are in the era of minimally invasive esophagectomy. The current three main approaches to an esophagectomy are the Ivor Lewis technique, McKeown technique, and the transhiatal approach to esophagectomy. These operations were associated with a high morbidity and mortality. The recent advances in minimally invasive surgical techniques have greatly improved the outcomes of these surgical procedures. This article reviews the literature and describes the various techniques available for performing minimally invasive esophagectomy and robot-assisted esophagectomies, the history behind the development of these techniques, the variations, and the contemporary outcomes after such procedures.

Outcomes associated with minimally invasive esophagectomy techniques.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 171-171
Author(s):  
Andrea M. Abbott ◽  
Matthew Doepker ◽  
Ravi Shridhar ◽  
Sarah E. Hoffe ◽  
Khaldoun Almhanna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Esophageal Resection ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
Surgical Approaches ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Operative Outcomes ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss

171 Background: Surgery is pivotal in the management of patients with esophageal cancer. Recent prospective data demonstrates advantages of minimally invasive techniques. However, varying surgical techniques precludes the recommendation of a standard approach. We sought to examine our outcomes with differing approaches to minimally invasive esophagectomy. Methods: We queried a prospective esophageal database to identify patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) from 1994 and 2014. Surgical approaches included trans-hiatal (TH), Ivor Lewis (IVL), and robotic assisted Ivor Lewis (RAIL). Demographics, operative variables and post-operative complications were all compared. Results: We identified 280 patients who underwent MIE with a mean age of 65.65 ± 10.5 and a median follow-up of 48 months. Fifty-seven patients underwent IVL, 78 underwent TH, and 145 underwent RAIL. The length of operation was significantly longer in IVL and RAIL approaches compared to TH (TH=242, IVL=320, RAIL=415, p=0.001). Estimated blood loss did not differ between cohorts (TH=150, IVL=125, RAIL=158, p=0.8). Anastomotic leakage, stricture, pneumonia, and wound infections were all higher in the TH compared to the trans-thoracic approaches p=0.04, p=0.02, p=0.01, and p<0.001 respectively. Operative mortality was low for each cohort and did not differ between approaches (TH=2.6%, IVL=0%, RAIL=2%, p=0.2). The median length of hospitalization also did not differ between groups (TH=10 days, IVL=8.5 days, and RAIL=9 days, p=0.15). Adequacy of oncologic resection was measured by margins and nodal harvest. There was decreased R1 resections in both the IVL and RAIL compared to TH (TH=8%, IVL=0%, and RAIL=0% p=0.04). Additionally, the mean number of lymph nodes harvested was lower in patients undergoing TH compared to IVL and RAIL groups (TH=9.2, IVL=12.8, and RAIL=20.6, p=0.05). Conclusions: In our large series comparing minimally invasive approaches to esophageal resection we have demonstrated improved operative outcomes and oncologic outcomes in trans-thoracic approaches compared to trans-hiatal approaches. We recommend that patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy be strongly considered for a trans-thoracic approach.

Redefining the learning curve for robotic esophagectomy.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 132-132
Author(s):  
Ken Lee Meredith ◽  
Jamie Huston ◽  
Pedro Briceno ◽  
Ravi Shridhar
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Learning Curve ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation ◽  
Esophageal Disease ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Robotic Esophagectomy ◽  
Conversion Rates ◽  
Morbidity Index

132 Background: Minimally invasive esophagectomy(MIE) has demonstrated superior outcomes compared to open approaches. The myriad of techniques has precluded the recommendation of a standard approach. The robotic approach has increased steadily. We have previously published our series defining the learning curve for this approach. The purpose of this study is to redefine the learning curve for robotic-assisted esophagogastrectomy with respect to operative time, conversion rates, and patient safety. Methods: We have prospectively followed all patients undergoing robotic-assisted esophagogastrectomy and compared operations performed at our institutions by a single surgeon in successive cohorts. Our measures of proficiency included: operative times, conversion rates, and complications. Statistical analyses were undertaken utilizing Spearman regression analysis and Mann-Whitney U test. Significance was accepted with 95 % confidence. Results: We identified 203 patients (166 [81.8%] male: 37 [18.2%] female) of median age of 67.2 (30-90) years who underwent robotic-assisted esophagogastrectomies for malignant esophageal disease. One-hundred sixty six were adenocarcinoma, 26 were squamous cell carcinoma and 11 were other. R0 resections was performed in 202 (99.5%) of patients. The median lymph node harvest was 18 (6-63). Neoadjuvant chemoradiation was administered to 157 (77.4%) patients. A significant reduction in operative times (p <0.005) following completion of 20 procedures was identified (514 ± 106 min vs. 415± 91 min compared to subsequent 80 cases and further reduced with the subsequent 100 cases 397 ± 71.9 min) p<0.001. Complications decreased after the initial learning curve of 29 cases, p=0.04. However there was an increase in complications after 90 cases in which there was an increase in the Charleson morbidity index, p<0.01 indicating higher risk patients which tapered after case 115. Conclusions: For surgeons proficient in performing minimally-invasive esophagogastrectomies, the learning curve for a robotic-assisted procedure appears to begin near proficiency after 20 cases however as more complex cases are undertake there appears to be an additional learning curve which is surpassed after 90 cases.

scholarly journals Minimally invasive esophagectomy in achalasia: a more liberal approach to esophageal resection

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo Crema ◽  
Júverson Alves Terra Júnior ◽  
Guilherme Azevedo Terra ◽  
Celso Junior De Oliveira Teles ◽  
Alex Augusto Da Silva
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Esophageal Resection ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Liberal Approach

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.

Totally minimally invasive two-stage esophagectomy with intrathoracic hand-sewn anastomosis: short-term clinical and oncological outcomes

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Elshaer ◽  
G Gravante ◽  
C-B Tang ◽  
N V Jayanthi
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Resection Margin ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Esophageal Resection ◽  
Senior Author ◽  
Cardiac Complications ◽  
Large Trial ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Oncological Outcomes

SUMMARY Several esophageal resection techniques have been reported in literature. The objective of this study is to assess postoperative and oncological outcomes of two-stage minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in a prone position using thoracoscopic hand-sewn anastomosis. Consecutive patients who underwent two-stage MIE in 2016 performed by the senior author were included. This was compared with the preceding cohort of consecutive patients who underwent two-stage hybrid esophagectomy (HE). The primary outcome was 30-day morbidity and mortality. The secondary outcomes were operation duration, length of stay (LOS), total nodes examined (TNE), number of positive nodes (NPN), and resection margin. Overall, 15 patients underwent MIE and 11 patients underwent HE. Respiratory complications occurred in three (20.0%) patients in the MIE group and in five (45.5%) patients in the HE group (P = 0.218). Cardiac complications occurred in two (18.2%) patients, and two other patients (18.2%) experienced anastomotic leak in the HE group. Mean operative duration was 349 ± 41.6 min in MIE and 309 ± 47.8 min in HE (P = 0.040). Median LOS was 10 days (range: 7–70) in MIE and 13 days (range: 10–116) in HE (P = 0.045). Median TNE was 23 (range: 12–36) in MIE and 20 (range: 14–47) in HE (P = 0.775). Longitudinal margin was involved in one patient (9.1%) in HE and no longitudinal margin was involved in the MIE group. Circumferential resection margin was involved in seven patients (46.7%) in MIE and in four patients (36.4%) in HE (P = 0.391). Two-stage MIE using hand-sewn technique is safe and feasible without compromising surgical and oncological outcomes. A multicenter large trial is recommended to confirm these results.

scholarly journals Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: The First Experience from Pakistan

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farrukh Hassan Rizvi ◽  
Syed Shahrukh Hassan Rizvi ◽  
Aamir Ali Syed ◽  
Shahid Khattak ◽  
Ali Raza Khan
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Transhiatal Esophagectomy ◽  
Learning Phase ◽  
Morbidity And Mortality ◽  
High Morbidity ◽  
Continuous Variables ◽  
Perioperative Morbidity ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy

Background. Two common procedures for esophageal resection are Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and transhiatal esophagectomy. Both procedures have high morbidity rates of 20–46%. Minimally invasive esophagectomy has been introduced to decrease morbidity. We report initial experience of MIE to determine the morbidity and mortality associated with this procedure during learning phase.Material and Methods. Patients undergoing MIE at our institute from January 2011 to May 2013 were reviewed. Record was kept for any morbidity and mortality. Descriptive statistics were presented as frequencies and continuous variables were presented as median. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan Meier curves.Results. We performed 51 minimally invasive esophagectomies. Perioperative morbidity was in 16 (31.37%) patients. There were 3 (5.88%) anastomotic leaks. We encountered 1 respiratory complication. Reexploration was required in 3 (5.88%) patients. Median operative time was 375 minutes. Median hospital stay was 10 days. The most frequent long-term morbidity was anastomotic narrowing observed in 5 (9.88%) patients. There were no perioperative mortalities. Our mean overall survival was 37.66 months (95% confidence interval 33.75 to 41.56 months). Mean disease-free survival was 24.43 months (95% CI 21.26 to 27.60 months).Conclusion. Minimally invasive esophagectomy, when performed in the learning phase, has acceptable morbidity and mortality.

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

2019 ◽  
pp. 308-318
Author(s):  
Brandon Merling ◽  
Frank Dupont
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Anesthetic Management ◽  
Pulmonary Complications ◽  
Morbidity And Mortality ◽  
High Morbidity ◽  
Perioperative Morbidity ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Common Causes

Esophageal cancer is the eighth most common malignancy worldwide, producing a high morbidity and mortality rate around the globe. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is most commonly performed on patients with this devastating disease. Esophagectomy is a high-risk procedure, and perioperative mortality remains around 5%–8%. Because esophageal cancer is associated with chronic alcohol and tobacco use, patients have serious comorbid conditions that affect anesthetic management and perioperative care. Among them, pulmonary complications and anastomotic failure remain the most common causes of perioperative morbidity and mortality. The anesthesiologist managing a patient during MIE must be able to reduce the effect of the patient’s multiple comorbidities intraoperatively while mitigating the factors that lead to adverse postoperative outcomes.

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.

scholarly journals Robotic resection for esophageal cancer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan-Niclas Kersebaum ◽  
Thorben Möller ◽  
Thomas Becker ◽  
Jan-Hendrik Egberts
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Tumor Resection ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Robotic Esophagectomy

Summary Background In the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer, complete tumor resection is the most important factor and determines long-term survival. With an increase in robotic expertise in other fields of surgery, robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) was born. Currently, there is a lack of convincing data on the extent of expected benefits (perioperative and oncologic outcomes and/or quality of life). Some evidence exists that patients’ overall quality of life and physical function improves, with less fatigue and pain 3 months after surgery. We aimed to review the available literature regarding robotic esophagectomy, compare perioperative, oncologic, and quality of life outcomes with open and minimally invasive approaches, and give a brief overview of our standardized four-arm RAMIE technique and explore future directions. Methods A Medline (PubMed) search was conducted including the following key words: esophagectomy, minimally invasive esophagectomy, robotic esophagectomy, Ivor Lewis and McKeown. We present the history, different techniques used, outcomes, and the standardization of robotic esophagectomy. Results Robotic esophagectomy offers a steeper learning curve with fewer complications but comparable oncological results compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy. Conclusions Available studies suggest that RAMIE is associated with benefits regarding length of stay, clinical outcomes, and quality of life—if patients are treated in an experienced center with a standardized technique for robotic esophagectomy—making it a potentially beneficial tool in the treatment of esophageal cancer. However, center-wide standardization and prospective data collection will be a necessity to prove superiority of robotic esophagectomy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document