Using Benchmarking Standards to Evaluate Transition to Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

Abstract

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is performed in nearly 50% of patients worldwide. The effectiveness of the technique arises from a single randomized control trial and multiple single series cohorts. Consistent reporting of complications is varied. We describe our experience of transitioning to MIE compared with open esophagectomy (OE) with the use of Esophageal Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) standardized complication benchmark definitions. Between 2007 and 2017, all patients undergoing esophagectomy were identified with the use of a prospectively curated database. Complications were defined by the ECCG and graded with the Clavien-Dindo (most severe complication) and comprehensive complication index (complexity of complications during hospital stay). Of 383 patients, 299 (76%) were men with a median age of 64.5 years (range, 56-72 years). MIE was performed in 49.6%. No differences were found in age, histologic finding (P= .222), pT stage (P= .136), or nodal positivity (P= .918). Stage 3 cancers accounted for 42.0% of OEs and 47.9% of MIEs. A thoracic anastomosis was more frequent in MIEs (156 of 190; 82.1%) than in OEs (113 of 193; 58.5%; P= .001). Frequency, severity (Clavien-Dindo), and complexity (comprehensive complication index) of complications were better in the MIE group, without compromising operative outcomes. No differences were identified in individual complication groupings or grade in MIEs compared with OEs (pneumonia: 19.5% versus 26.9% ([P= .09]; intensive care unit readmission: 7.4% versus 9.3% [P= .519]; atrial fibrillation: 11.1% versus 6.7% [P= .082], or grade of leak [P= .99]). These results compare favorably to those reported by ECCG. MIE can be the standard approach for surgical management of esophageal cancer. Introduction of the approach in each surgeon's practice should be benchmarked to international standards.