PS01.219: SINGLE-PORT THORACOSCOPIC MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER

Abstract

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.