Conventional Open Esophagectomy Research Articles

225. LONG-TERM ONCOLOGIC OUTCOMES OF ROBOT-ASSISTED VERSUS CONVENTIONAL OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER: PROPENSITY-SCORE MATCHED ANAYLSIS

Abstract Background This study aimed to compare the long-term oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) with those of conventional open esophagectomy (OE) for esophageal cancer. Methods Between January 2006 and December 2021, 1,745 consecutive patients underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer at our institution. Among them, we retrieved 1,133 patients (mean age 63.1±7.8 years, 86 [7.6%] women, 1,100 [97.1%] squamous cell carcinomas), who were operated by a single surgeon. These patients were categorized into following two groups based on their surgical approaches: RAMIE (n = 497) and OE (n = 636). The RAMIE and OE groups were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores. Results Median follow-up was 51.8 months. Five-year overall survival (OS, 70.7% vs. 55.0%) and recurrence-free survival (RFS, 63.3% vs. 50.1%) rates were significantly higher in RAMIE than in OE group (P < 0.01). Following propensity-score matching, 886 patients (443 pairs) were successfully matched, demonstrating no significant intergroup differences. The RAMIE group consistently demonstrated enhanced OS (70.4% vs. 61.8%, P < 0.01) and RFS (62.8% vs. 55.8%, P=0.04) after five years, even after adjustment (Figure). The rate of noncancer mortality was significantly higher in the OE group (P < 0.01), whereas the esophageal cancer-related mortality showed no significant differences (P = 0.25). Conclusions RAMIE could be a safer and more feasible option for patients compared with conventional open esophagectomy with favorable long-term oncologic outcomes.

A randomized controlled phase III trial comparing thoracoscopic esophagectomy and open esophagectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer: JCOG1409 (MONET trial).

249 Background: Thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) as minimally invasive esophagectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer has become widely prevalent around the world over the past decade. However, results from a large-scale, multicenter randomized controlled trial that compared long-term survival as the primary endpoint between TE and conventional open transthoracic esophagectomy (OE) have not yet been demonstrated. We conducted a multicenter randomized phase III study (JCOG1409) to confirm the non-inferiority of TE to OE in terms of overall survival (OS) for thoracic esophageal cancer (UMIN000017628). Methods: Eligible patients with clinical stage I-III, excluding T4, thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were randomized to undergo either OE or TE. The primary endpoint was OS, with secondary endpoints including relapse-free survival (RFS), the proportion of patients achieving R0 resection, the proportion of patients needing conversion from TE to OE, adverse events, the proportion of patients requiring re-operation, changes in postoperative respiratory dysfunction, and postoperative quality-of-life score. Non-inferiority would be confirmed if the upper limit of the confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) does not exceed 1.44, the predefined non-inferiority margin. Results: We randomized 300 patients, assigning 150 to the TE group and 150 to the OE group between May 2015 and June 2022. The second planned interim analysis with 64 OS events was conducted in June 2023. Median follow-up (interquartile range) was 2.6 (1.4-4.9) years. Three-year OS was 82.0% (95% CI, 73.8%-87.8%) in the TE group, and 70.9% (61.6%-78.4%) in the OE group. The Data and Safety Monitoring Committee recommended terminating the trial and publishing the results because the non-inferiority of TE to OE in terms of OS was demonstrated after adjusting for multiplicity (HR 0.64; 98.8% CI, 0.34-1.21 [<1.44], one-sided p-value for non-inferiority = 0.000726 < 0.00616). Three-year RFS in the TE group was markedly better than that in the OE group (72.9% vs. 61.9%) with HR of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.46-1.01). R0 resection proportions were 95.3% in the TE group and 90.0% in the OE group. One patient in the TE group needed conversion from TE to OE intraoperatively. The postoperative overall morbidity was similar between the two groups, but the proportion of re-operation was 2.0% in the TE group and 4.1% in the OE group. Respiratory dysfunction proportion at 3 months after surgery were significantly lower in the TE group than in the OE group. Conclusions: TE was shown to be a standard treatment for patients with clinical stage I-III thoracic esophageal cancer. Clinical trial information: UMIN000017628 .

Comparative outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a propensity score-weighted analysis.

Robots are increasingly used in minimally invasive surgery. We evaluated the clinical benefits of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in comparison with the conventional open esophageal surgery. From 2012 to 2016, 371 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma underwent an Ivor Lewis or McKeown procedure at our institution. Of these, 130 patients underwent laparoscopic gastric conduit formation followed by RAMIE, whereas 241 patients underwent conventional esophageal surgery, including laparotomy and open esophagectomy (OE). We compared the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of these patients using the propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting technique (IPTW). Among the early outcomes, the OE group showed a higher incidence of pneumonia (P = 0.035) and a higher requirement for vasopressors (P = 0.001). Regarding the long-term outcomes, all-cause mortality was significantly higher (P = 0.001) and disease-free survival was lower (P = 0.006) in the OE group. Wound-related problems also occurred more frequently in the OE group (P = 0.020) during the long-term follow-up. There was no statistical intergroup difference in the recurrence rates (P = 0.191). The Cox proportional-hazard analysis demonstrated that wound problems (HR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02-0.57; P = 0.017), pneumonia (HR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06-0.68; P = 0.019), and use of vasopressors (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.08-0.25; P = 0.001) were independent predictors of mortality. RAMIE could be a better surgical option for selected patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Clinical utility of robot-assisted transthoracic esophagectomy in advanced esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy.

Although robot-assisted minimally-invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) surgeries are expanding clinically, few studies have reported patients with locally-advanced esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT). From 2013 to 2017, 219 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma underwent RAMIE and 35 of them received nCRT at our institution. During the period, 289 patients underwent conventional open esophagectomy (OE) and 111 patients underwent nCRT. We compared postoperative mortality and morbidity of RAMIE and OE patients after nCRT. In patients who received nCRT, the RAMIE and OE groups had similar operative time, estimated blood loss, early-period mortality, and recurrence rate (≤1 year) and both groups showed a high rate of complete resection. With respect to postoperative morbidities, such as anastomotic leakage, chylothorax, postoperative bleeding, and wound infection, only vasopressor use was significantly higher in the OE group (P<0.001). The RAMIE group had a lower, but not statistically significant, postoperative pneumonia incidence than the OE group (5.7% vs. 13.5%, P=0.341). In patients who received nCRT for locally-advanced esophageal cancer, RAMIE is safe and feasible with comparable postoperative mortality and morbidity to conventional OE. Patients with advanced-stage esophageal cancer who received nCRT may be surgical candidates for RAMIE.

Single center consecutive series cohort study of minimally invasive versus open resection for cancer in the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been introduced at many centers worldwide as evidence is accumulating that it reduces the risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality and decreases the length of hospital stay compared to conventional open esophagectomy. The study is a single institution cohort study of 366 consecutive patients treated with curative intent for cancer in the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction, comparing MIE to open surgery. The outcomes studied were peroperative bleeding, operation time, lymph node yield, complications, length of stay and overall survival. The results showed that MIE was associated with reduced peroperative bleeding and operation time. The patients in the MIE group had a statistically significant reduced risk of postoperative complications, 60.2% compared to 78.8% in the open group. In the MIE group 28.4% of the patients had postoperative complications classified according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system as grade IIIb-V compared to 38.2% in the open group, P=0.046. Median hospital stay was reduced with 10 days comparing MIE to open surgery, P<0.001. Mean number of resected lymph nodes was 31 in the MIE group and 22 in the open group (P<0.001), while the R0 resections were 91.5% versus 85% (P=0.057). Overall long-term survival was higher in the MIE group, a difference that however did not reach statistical significance (adjusted hazard ratio for three-year survival 0.76, 95% CI 0.54-1.08). In conclusion, MIE at a high volume center with a devoted specialist team reduces the risk of peroperative bleeding, operation time, and severe postoperative complications compared to open surgery for esophageal or junctional cancer. The number of resected lymph nodes was increased and the R0 resections were similar between the groups indicating a good oncological quality of the surgery.

The era of minimally invasive esophagectomy

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (MIE) has become a standard surgical approach for esophageal cancer in the world. In this report, we introduce the history of MIE which is different between eastern and western countries. With the development of surgical techniques, including single-lumen endotracheal intubation, CO2 artificial pneumothorax, and surgical positioning, the MIE has made great progress. It was approved that due to significantly reduced surgical trauma, MIE lowers postoperative morbidity and mortality while achieving a tumor resection efficacy comparable with the conventional open esophagectomy. The improvement of surgical instruments and modification of surgical approaches are the keys to gaining greater clinical advantage in the future of MIE, especially the popularity of robotic surgery.

Is thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy a better alternative to thoracoscopic esophagectomy?

BackgroundMinimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is gaining rapid popularity as an alternative to conventional open esophagectomy. However, whether incorporating laparoscopy into MIE can further help the patients with esophageal cancer has rarely been studied. The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term clinical efficacy of thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy (TLE) compared with thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) in treating esophageal cancer. MethodsFrom September 2014 to December 2016, a total of 131 patients with esophageal cancer who had consecutively undergone MIE were included in the analysis; of them, TLE was performed in 71 patients and TE in 60 patients. Characteristics and perioperative outcomes of all patients were collected and compared to determine differences between the 2 groups. ResultsOperation time (p = 0.172), chest drainage volume (p = 0.656), and pathologic staging (p = 0.671) were similar in the 2 groups. Compared with the TE approach, the TLE approach was associated with less blood loss during the operation (median, 100 vs 150 ml, p < 0.001), shorter chest drainage time (median, 2 vs 3 days, p < 0.001), a larger number of harvested lymph nodes (median, 24 vs 20, p < 0.001), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (median, 10 vs 11 days, p = 0.008). There was no significant difference between groups with regard to the major (grade ≥ III) and minor (grade < III) complications. ConclusionsTLE is a safe and effective alternative to TE. Patients undergoing TLE may benefit from less blood loss, a larger number of harvested lymph nodes and faster postoperative recovery. Additional randomized controlled trial with longer follow-up is needed.

Implementation of minimally invasive esophagectomy in a tertiary referral center for esophageal cancer

Esophagectomy remains the gold standard in the curative intent treatment of resectable esophageal cancer. However, this procedure is complex and associated with high risk of complications. In an effort to reduce the postoperative morbidity associated with open esophagectomy various minimally invasive techniques have been introduced and developed during the recent years. The aim of the current study was to present our 4.5-year experience of the gradual implementation of various minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) techniques in our tertiary referral center. From May 2012 a transitional period from conventional open esophagectomy to MIE was initiated. This period was preceded by fellowships and visits to expert centers abroad. Thereafter, a gradual implementation and refinement of the new techniques followed. Technique related data were collected prospectively. Between January 1st 2011 and December 31st 2016 a total of 249 patients underwent an esophagectomy in our unit. Seventy-six cases were performed through a conventional open esophagectomy and 173 by some type of MIE. An increasing utilization of MIE over this time period was seen and finally reached 100% of treatment intentions, during the last 2 years. Ten cases (5.7%) where converted to open approach. A decrease in leak rate, operating time, peroperative bleeding and hospital stay as well as an increasing number of harvested lymph nodes was observed during the implementation period. The transition from conventional open esophagectomy to MIE was successful at our center. The implementation was overall safe with good postoperative outcomes, although changes in results required technical modifications over time.

Morbidity analysis in minimally invasive esophagectomy for oesophageal cancer versus conventional over the last 10 years, a single institution experience.

BACKGROUND:There has been an increasing inclination towards minimally invasive esophagectomies (MIEs) at our institute recently for resectable oesophageal cancer.OBJECTIVES:The purpose of the present study is to report peri-operative and long-term procedure specific outcomes of the two groups and analyse their changing pattern at our institute.METHODS:All adult patients with a diagnosis of oesophageal cancer managed at our institute from 2005 to 2015 were included in this retrospective study. Patients’ demographic and clinical characteristics were recorded through our hospital information system. The cohort of esophagectomies was allocated into two groups, conventional open esophagectomy (OE) or total laparoscopic MIE; hybrid esophagectomies were taken as a separate group. The short-term outcome measures are an operative time in minutes, length of hospital and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay in days, post-operative complications and 30 days in-hospital mortality. Complications are graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Long-term outcomes are long-term procedure related complications over a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Trends were analysed by visually inspecting the graphic plots for mean number of events in each group each year.RESULTS:Our results showed no difference in mortality, length of hospital and ICU stays and incidence of major complications between three groups on uni- and multi-variate analysis (P > 0.05). The operative time was significantly longer in MIE group (odds ratio [OR]: 1.66, confidence interval [CI]: 2.4–11.5). The incidence of long-term complication was low for MIE (OR: 1.0, CI: 133–1.017). However, all post-operative surgical outcomes trended to improve in both groups over the course of this study and stayed better for MIE group except for the operative time.CONCLUSION:MIE has overall comparable surgical outcomes to its conventional counterpart. Furthermore, the peri-operative outcomes tend to improve in our centre with the maturation of program and experience.

Comparison of postoperative immune function in patients with thoracic esophageal cancer after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery or conventional open esophagectomy

AimThe aim of the study was to compare postoperative immune function in patients with thoracic esophageal cancer (EC) after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) or conventional open esophagectomy. Patients and methodsMedical records were retrospectively analyzed for 228 patients with thoracic EC treated at a single hospital using VATS (n = 52) or conventional open esophagectomy (n = 176). Proportions of CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, and natural kill (NK) cells, as well as the ratio of CD4+ to CD8+ cells, were measured in the two groups using flow cytometry on preoperative day (PrD) 1 and postoperative days (PoD) 1 and 7. ResultsProportions of CD3+, CD4+, and NK cells as well as the CD4+/CD8+ ratio decreased significantly from PrD1 to PoD1 in both the VATS and open esophagectomy groups. In the VATS group, these parameters had returned to preoperative levels (PrD1) by PoD7. These parameters in open esophagectomy group increased from PoD1 to PoD7 but also lowered significantly to PrD1 by PoD7. The proportion of CD8+ cells was similar between the two groups at all time points tested. ConclusionPatients may experience less postoperative immune suppression after VATS than after conventional open esophagectomy, and they may recover preoperative immune function more quickly.

Adaption of surgical procedure in the treatment of submucosal esophageal cancer

To evaluate the efficacy and advantage of minimally invasive esophagectomy for surgical treatment of submucosal esophageal cancer compared to conventional open procedure. Clinical data of consecutive 168 patients with stage T1b submucosal esophageal cancer undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE, esophagectomy by thoracoscope, stomach freeing by laparoscope or open abdomen, cervical esophagogastric anastomosis) or conventional open esophagectomy (OE) at the Shanghai Chest Hospital between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2014 were reviewed retrospectively. Intraoperative and postoperative information was compared between the two groups. Both groups were equally stratified by sex, body mass index and age. No patient of MIE group was transferred to open operation. As compared to the OE group, the MIE group had significantly more harvest lymph nodes (median 12 vs. median 9, P=0.004), lower rate of postoperative pneumonia [5.8% (4/69) vs. 21.2% (21/99), P=0.011] and pleural effusion [8.7% (6/69) vs. 23.2% (23/99), P=0.027], and shorter hospital stay (median 11 d vs. median 14 d, P=0.041), but positive margin was found in 1 case. There were no significant differences of respiratory failure, pneumothorax, atrial arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism, recurrent nerve palsy, anastomotic leak, reoperations and 30-day mortality between the two groups. Multivariate logistic analysis revealed recurrent nerve palsy, anastomotic leak and surgical approach were found to be the main factors of hospital stay within postoperative 12 days, while leakage when the in-hospital time more than 12 days. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the surgical approach was the independent factor of hospital stay, MIE could shorten the hospital stay (P=0.013). MIE should be considered as the standard approach in the treatment of T1b submucosal esophageal cancer.

Observation of the effect of thoracoscopic esophagectomy for 22 patients with esophageal cancer

Objective To explore the safety and outcomes of thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Methods The clinical data of 22 patients with esophageal cancer received thoracoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy(study group)were retrospectively analyzed and compared with 46 patients underwent conventional open thoracic esophagectomy(control group).The medium-term clinic outcomes of the two groups were compared. Results Compared to the control group,the study group showed significantly longer operation time[(183±37)mins vs(239±41)mins,t= 6.19,P= 0.002],less intraoperative blood loss[(95± 33)m L vs(115±27)m L,t= 5.04,P= 0.004],shorter postoperative hospital stay[(15.8±6.2)d vs(17.5±7.1)d,t= 5.62,P= 0.003],and more removed lymph nodes[(11.6±4.2) vs(10.3±5.8),t=-3.19,P= 0.018)].No significant difference was observed in the survival rate between the two groups(χ2= 0.358,P= 0.449). Conclusion There is no difference in medium-term clinic outcomes between the two kinds of esophagectomy.The patients with esophageal cancer received thoracoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy has less complication and quick recovery.And the technology should be widely applied. Key words: Esophageal Neoplasms; Thoracoscopy; Esophagectomy

Minimally invasive treatment for breast cancer metastasis to the esophagus

Results A sixty-two year-old female presented in May 2009 with an eighteen-month history of dysphagia due to a chronic benign esophageal structure, presumed secondary to previous radiotherapy treatment for breast cancer. She complained of occasional heartburn, indigestion and cough and described a 60lbs weight loss due to tolerance of a liquid only diet. She had a fifteen-year smoking history. She had been undergoing monthly esophageal dilatations over the previous six-months. Multiple previous esophageal biopsies were benign. Clinical assessment was unremarkable. Endoscopic ultrasound demonstrated a tight fibrotic stricture at 26cm.Additional biopsies were again negative for malignancy. She was referred for MIE surgical resection. After creation of the pneumoperitoneum and insertion of four trocars, the short gastric vessels were divided followed by mobilisation of the gastric fundus with preservation of the gastroepiploic artery. High mediastinal dissection was performed to mobilize the esophagus followed by a chemical pyloromyotomy. A mini-right posterior-lateral thoracotomy identified a small caliber esophagus which was dissected free of right bronchial adhesions. The esophagus was subsequently divided proximally and distally followed by a stapled anastomosis. Histopathological analysis confirmed an invasive adenocarcinoma consistent with a breast primary. She remains well four-years post-surgery. Unfortunately, in advanced cases, therapeutic interventional strategies tend to target symptomatic palliation rather than curative resection. Conventional open esophagectomy involves a myriad of incisions depending on the tumour site. These incisions create significant patient morbidity.MIE surgery has evolved to minimise patient morbidity compared to conventional open techniques. Shorter operative times without the need to reposition the patient is cost-effective, whilst preservation of the latisimus dorsi muscle may reduce post-operative pain and improve overall quality of life (QOL) post operatively. The four laparoscopic port sites provide adequate abdominal exposure whilst the mini-thoracotomy facilitates esophageal mobilisation and division. Higher physical function index scores have been reported twenty-four weeks following MIE surgery compared to conventional open surgeries.

Clinical benefits of thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position for esophageal cancer

The clinical benefits of thoracoscopic radical esophagectomy in the prone position compared to conventional open esophagectomy have not been fully documented. Forty-six patients with esophageal cancer who underwent MIE in the prone position (MIE-P group) were enrolled, and 46 case-matched controls that underwent open esophagectomy (OE group) were identified using propensity score methods to achieve a valid comparison of outcomes between MIE and open esophagectomy. The duration of systemic inflammatory response syndrome was shorter in the MIE-P group than in OE group (P = 0.005). The time to first walking was earlier in the MIE-P group (P < 0.001). Although the vital capacity ratio (%VC) declined after the operation in both groups, the change ratio of the %VC was 85.3% in the MIE-P group and 69.6% in the OE group (P < 0.001). No mortality occurred in either group. The postoperative morbidity rate was lower in the MIE-P group (13%) than in the OE group (30.4%) (P = 0.020). Two patients (4.3%) in the OE group and one patient in the MIE-P group (2.2%) had pneumonia. MIE in the prone position was associated with less impairment of the pulmonary function, earlier recovery of activity and lower subsequent morbidity compared to open esophagectomy. Further investigation of the long-term outcomes is, therefore, needed.

Immunological Changes After Minimally Invasive or Conventional Esophageal Resection for Cancer: A Randomized Trial

This study was performed as a substudy analysis of a randomized trial comparing conventional open esophagectomy [open surgical technique (OE)] by thoracotomy and laparotomy with minimally invasive esophagectomy [minimally invasive procedure (MIE)] by thoracoscopy and laparoscopy. This additional analysis focuses on the immunological changes and surgical stress response in these two randomized groups of a single center. Patients with a resectable esophageal cancer were randomized to OE (n = 13) or MIE (n = 14). All patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The immunological response was measured by means of leukocyte counts, HLA-DR expression on monocytes, the acute-phase response by means of C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and interleukin-8 (IL-8), and the stress response was measured by cortisol, growth hormone, and prolactin. All parameters were determined at baseline (preoperatively) and 24, 72, 96, and 168 h postoperatively. Significant differences between the two groups were seen in favor of the MIE group with regard to leukocyte counts, IL-8, and prolactin at 168 h (1 week) postoperatively. For HLA-DR expression, IL-6, and CRP levels, there were no significant differences between the two groups, although there was a clear rise in levels upon operation in both groups. In this substudy of a randomized trial comparing minimally invasive and conventional open esophagectomies for cancer, significantly better preserved leukocyte counts and IL-8 levels were observed in the MIE group compared to the open group. Both findings can be related to fewer respiratory infections found postoperatively in the MIE group. Moreover, significant differences in the prolactin levels at 168 h after surgery imply that the stress response is better preserved in the MIE group. These findings indicate that less surgical trauma could lead to better preserved acute-phase and stress responses and fewer clinical manifestations of respiratory infections.

Short-term postoperative superiority and 5-year follow-up outcomes of video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy for treatment of esophageal carcinoma: a historical comparison with conventional open esophagectomy under a single experienced surgeon

Background Few reports have provided a direct comparison of thoracoscopic and open esophagectomy for treatment of esophageal carcinoma in a sufficiently large number of patients with an adequate follow-up period.

Current status of minimally invasive esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer

Technical advancements and development of endoscopic equipment in thoracoscopic surgery have resulted in increase in the popularity of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). However, advantages with regard to short-term outcome and oncological feasibility of MIE have not been adequately established. To date, a number of single-institution studies and several meta-analyses have demonstrated acceptable short-term outcomes of thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, and the outcomes are comparable to those of conventional open esophagectomy (OE). A study group recently reported the results of the first multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared MIE and OE. The incidence of pulmonary infection after surgery was markedly lower in the MIE group than in the OE group. Additional benefits of MIE included less operative blood loss, better postoperative patients' quality of life, and shorter hospital stay. However, the oncological benefit to patients undergoing MIE has not been scientifically proven because there have been no RCTs to verify the equivalency in long-term survival of patients undergoing MIE compared with that of patients undergoing OE. If future prospective studies indicate oncological benefits, MIE could truly become the standard care for patients with esophageal cancer.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Esophageal Cancer: Review of the Literature and Institutional Experience

Esophageal cancer represents a major public health problem in the world. Several minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) techniques have been described and represent a safe alternative for the surgical management of esophageal cancer in selected centers with high volume and surgeons experienced in minimally invasive procedures. The authors reviewed the most recent and largest studies published in the medical literature that reported the outcomes for MIE techniques. In larger series, MIE has proven to be equivalent in postoperative morbidity and mortality to the open esophagectomy. However, MIE has been associated with less blood loss, reduced postoperative pain, decreased time in the intensive care unit, and shortened length of hospital stay compared with the conventional open approaches. Despite limited data, no significant difference in survival stage for stage has been observed between open esophagectomy and MIE. The myriad of MIE techniques complicates the debate for defining the optimal surgical approach for the treatment of esophageal cancer. Randomized controlled trials comparing MIE with conventional open esophagectomy are needed to clarify the ideal procedure with the lowest postoperative morbidity, best quality of life after surgery, and long-term survival.

Evidence to Support the Use of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

To use meta-analysis to compare oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with open techniques (thoracoscopic and/or laparoscopic). Analysis includes the extent of lymph node (LN) clearance, number of LNs retrieved, staging, geographic variance, and mortality. A systematic review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines using MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases (1950-2012). We evaluated all comparative studies. All eligible published studies with adequate oncologic data comparing MIE with open resection for carcinoma of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction. Two investigators independently selected studies for inclusion and exclusion by article abstraction and quality assessment. After careful review, we included 16 case-control studies with 1212 patients undergoing esophagectomy. The median (range) number of LNs found in the MIE and open groups were 16 (5.7-33.9) and 10 (3.0-32.8), respectively, with a significant difference favoring MIE (P = .04). In comparing LN retrieval in Eastern vs Western studies, we found a significant difference in Western centers favoring MIE (P < .001). No statistical significance in pathologic staging was found between the open and MIE groups. Generally, no statistically significant difference was found between the open and MIE groups for survival within each time interval (30 days and 1, 2, 3, and 5 years), although the difference favored the MIE group. In comparing survival outcomes in Eastern vs Western centers, a nonsignificant survival advantage (across all time intervals) was found for MIE in the Eastern (P = .28) and Western (P = .44) centers. Minimally invasive esophagectomy is a viable alternative to open techniques. Meta-analytic evidence finds equivalent oncologic outcomes to conventional open esophagectomy.

Significance of Thoracoscopy-Assisted Surgery with a Minithoracotomy and Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for Esophageal Cancer: The Experience of a Single Surgeon

BackgroundThis retrospective study evaluated the surgical learning curve and outcomes of thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy. Patients and MethodsThe study group comprised a series of 92 patients with preoperatively diagnosed resectable thoracic esophageal cancer. Additionally, the surgical outcomes in 79 esophageal cancer patients receiving open esophagectomies were compared. All patients underwent thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy in the lateral decubitus position. The short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated, and the surgical learning curve was assessed. ResultsThe total operation time was 477.8±102.2 min, the thoracoscopic time was 157.9±61.3 min, the total blood loss was 554.4±280.5 ml, and the number of retrieved lymph nodes was 34.3 ± 14.3. Postoperative morbidity was observed in 23 patients. After the surgeon’s first 40 cases, the surgical technique and short-term outcomes were stable. The 5-year disease-specific survival was 66.6% and the 5-year overall survival was 64.6% in patients receiving R0 thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy. Comparison of 5-year disease-specific survival rate according to tumor–node–metastasis stage between patients receiving R0 thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy and conventional open esophagectomy showed that there were no significant differences in survival in any stage between the two groups. Loco-regional recurrence was observed in 6 patients, distant recurrence in seven, and combined recurrence in nine after R0 thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy. There was no significant difference in the pattern of recurrence between the two groups. ConclusionsThoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer was technically feasible and oncologically satisfactory, according to the surgical learning curve.