Operative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy versus Open Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer

Background There is a recent rise in the incidence of esophageal carcinoma in India. Surgical resection with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiation is the current treatment modality of choice. Postoperative complications, especially pulmonary complications, affect many patients who undergo open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) could reduce the pulmonary complications and reduce the postoperative stay. Methodology We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 114 patients with esophageal cancer in the department of surgical oncology at a tertiary cancer center in South India between January 2019 and March 2020. We included patients with resectable cancer of middle or lower third of the esophagus, and gastroesophageal junction tumors (Siewert I). MIE was performed in 27 patients and 78 patients underwent open esophagectomy (OE). The primary outcome measured was postoperative complications of Clavien–Dindo grade II or higher within 30 days. Other outcomes measured include overall mortality within 30 days, intraoperative complications, operative duration and the length of hospital stay. Results A postoperative complication rate of 18.5% was noted in the MIE group, compared with 41% in the OE group (p = 0.034). Pulmonary complications were noted in 7.4% in the MIE group compared to 25.6% in the OE group (p = 0.044). Postoperative mortality rates, intraoperative complications, and other nonpulmonary postoperative complications were almost similar with MIE as with open esophagectomy. Although the median operative time was more in the MIE group (260 minutes vs. 180 minutes; p < 0.0001), the median length of hospital stay was shorter in patients undergoing MIE (9 days vs. 12 days; p = 0.0001). Conclusions We found that MIE resulted in lower incidence of postoperative complications, especially pulmonary complications. Although, MIE was associated with prolonged operative duration, it resulted in shorter hospital stay.

Increased risk of diaphragmatic herniation following esophagectomy with a minimally invasive abdominal approach

Summary Objective Diaphragmatic herniation is a rare complication following esophagectomy, associated with risks of aspiration pneumonia, bowel obstruction, and strangulation. Repair can be challenging due to the presence of the gastric conduit. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the incidence and risk factors associated with diaphragmatic herniation following esophagectomy, the timing and mode of presentation, and outcomes of repair. Methods A systematic search using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines was performed using four major databases. A meta-analysis of diaphragmatic herniation incidence following esophagectomies with a minimally invasive abdominal (MIA) approach compared with open esophagectomies was conducted. Qualitative analysis was performed for tumor location, associated symptoms, time to presentation, and outcomes of postdiaphragmatic herniation repair. Results This systematic review consisted of 17,052 patients from 32 studies. The risk of diaphragmatic herniation was 2.74 times higher in MIA esophagectomy compared with open esophagectomy, with pooled incidence of 6.0% versus 3.2%, respectively. Diaphragmatic herniation was more commonly seen following surgery for distal esophageal tumors. Majority of patients (64%) were symptomatic at diagnosis. Presentation within 30 days of operation occurred in 21% of cases and is twice as likely to require emergent repair with increased surgical morbidity. Early diaphragmatic herniation recurrence and cardiorespiratory complications are common sequelae following hernia repair. Conclusions In the era of MIA esophagectomy, one has to be cognizant of the increased risk of diaphragmatic herniation and its sequelae. Failure to recognize early diaphragmatic herniation can result in catastrophic consequences. Increased vigilance and decreased threshold for imaging during this period is warranted.

623 MINIMALLY INVASIVE VERSUS OPEN MCKEOWN FOR PATIENTS WITH ESOPHAGEAL CANCER: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

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.

696 LONG-TERM OUTCOMES OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY COMPARED TO OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY: A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF 2958 CASES IN SINGLE CANCER CENTER

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.

792 OUTCOMES AFTER TOTALLY MINIMALLY INVASIVE VERSUS HYBRID OR OPEN IVOR LEWIS ESOPHAGECTOMY: RESULTS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL ESODATA STUDY GROUP.

To compare complications following totally minimally invasive (TMIE), laparoscopically assisted (hybrid) and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer. Three randomized trials have reported benefits for minimally invasive esophagectomy. Two studies compared TMIE versus open esophagectomy and another compared hybrid versus open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Only small retrospective studies compared TMIE with hybrid Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Methods Data were used from the International Esodata Study Group assessing patients undergoing TMIE, hybrid or open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Primary outcome was pneumonia, secondary outcomes included incidence and severity of anastomotic leakage, (major) complications, length of stay, escalation of care and 90-day mortality. Data were analyzed using multivariate multilevel models. Results In total, 4733 patients were included in this study (TMIE:1472, hybrid:1364 and open:1897). Patients undergoing TMIE had lower incidence of pneumonia compared to hybrid (10.9% vs 16.3%, Odds Ratio (OR):0.56, 95%CI: 0.40–0.80) and open esophagectomy (10.9% vs 17.4%, OR:0.60, 95%CI: 0.42–0.84) and had shorter length of stay (median 10 days (IQR 8–16)) compared to hybrid (14 (11–19), p = 0.041) and open esophagectomy (11 (9–16), p = 0.027). Patients undergoing TMIE had higher rate of anastomotic leakage compared to hybrid (15.1% vs 10.7%, OR:1.47, 95%CI: 1.01–2.13) and open esophagectomy (7.3%, OR:1.73, 95%CI: 1.26–2.38). No differences were reported between hybrid and open esophagectomy. Conclusion Compared to hybrid and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, TMIE resulted in a lower pneumonia rate, a shorter hospital length of stay but a higher anastomotic leakage rate. The impact of these individual complications on survival and long-term quality of life should be further investigated.