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

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.

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 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.

scholarly journals Robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: Ivor-Lewis approach

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 21-21
Author(s):  
Kelsey Musgrove ◽  
Charlotte R. Spear ◽  
Jahnavi Kakuturu ◽  
Britney R. Harris ◽  
Fazil Abbas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy

scholarly journals Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Frans van Workum ◽  
Bastiaan R Klarenbeek ◽  
Nikolaj Baranov ◽  
Maroeska M Rovers ◽  
Camiel Rosman
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Leakage Rate ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Lymph Node Count ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Node Count

Summary Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing HMIE with TMIE. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles comparing HMIE and TMIE were included. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. The primary outcome was pneumonia. Sensitivity analysis was performed by analyzing outcome for open chest hybrid MIE versus total TMIE and open abdomen MIE versus TMIE separately. Therefore, subgroup analysis was performed for laparoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, thoracoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, Ivor Lewis HMIE versus Ivor Lewis TMIE, and McKeown HMIE versus McKeown TMIE. There were no randomized controlled trials. Twenty-nine studies with a total of 3732 patients were included. Studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. In the main analysis, the pooled incidence of pneumonia was 19.0% after HMIE and 9.8% after TMIE which was not significantly different between the groups (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97–2.20). TMIE was associated with a lower incidence of wound infections (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.13–2.90) and less blood loss (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.34–1.22) but with longer operative time (SMD:-0.33, 95% CI: −0.59—-0.08). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy-assisted HMIE was associated with a higher lymph node count than TMIE, and Ivor Lewis HMIE was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate than Ivor Lewis TMIE. In general, TMIE was associated with moderately lower morbidity compared to HMIE, but randomized controlled evidence is lacking. The higher leakage rate and lower lymph node count that was found after TMIE in sensitivity analysis indicate that TMIE can also have disadvantages. The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully by surgeons when moving from HMIE to TMIE.

Intraoperative Lipid-Rich Nutrition in the Detection of Chylothorax in Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 545-550
Author(s):  
Merel Lubbers ◽  
Marc J. van Det ◽  
Ewout A. Kouwenhoven
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Thoracic Duct ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Historical Cohort ◽  
Feeding Jejunostomy ◽  
Ivor Lewis ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Rich Solution ◽  
Group A

Background. Chylothorax is a rare but severe complication after esophagectomy with an incidence of 1.9% to 8.9%. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of intraoperative lipid-rich feeding in reducing the incidence of post-esophagectomy chylothorax. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was performed among patients who underwent totally minimally invasive esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis (tMIE Ivor Lewis) from February 2015 until December 2016. In this group, a lipid-rich solution was administered intraoperatively via a feeding jejunostomy. A historical cohort of identical patients operated in the period December 2012 to February 2015 did not receive intraoperative feeding and was used as a control. Results. In total, 133 patients underwent tMIE Ivor Lewis, of whom 59 patients (44%) received lipid-rich solution intraoperatively. The administered median total volume was 800 mL. During thoracic dissection, the thoracic duct was clearly visible in 37 patients (63%). With the help of lipid-rich feeding, intraoperative unintended duct damage was detected in 3 patients and treated. Postoperatively, 1 out of 59 patients (1.7%) developed chylothorax that was managed nonoperatively. In the control group, chylothorax was seen in 3 out of 74 patients (4.1%), P = .629. Conclusions. Intraoperative lipid-rich solution through a feeding jejunostomy helps identify thoracic duct damage during tMIE and may reduce postoperative chylothorax.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document