Hybrid Esophagectomy Research Articles

Minimally invasive vs open vs hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal carcinoma has emerged as the contemporary alternative to conventional laparoscopic minimally invasive (LMIE), hybrid (HE) and open (OE) surgical approaches. No single study has compared all four approaches with a view to postoperative outcomes. A systematic search of electronic databases was undertaken. A network meta-analysis was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-network meta-analysis guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using R and Shiny. Seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 1063 patients were included. Overall, 32.9% of patients underwent OE (350/1063), 11.0% underwent HE (117/1063), 34.0% of patients underwent LMIE (361/1063), and 22.1% of patients underwent RAMIE (235/1063). OE had the lowest anastomotic leak rate 7.7% (27/350), while LMIE had the lowest pulmonary 10.8% (39/361), cardiac 0.56% (1/177) complications, re-intervention rates 5.08% (12/236), 90-day mortality 1.05% (2/191), and shortest length of hospital stay (mean 11.25days). RAMIE displayed the lowest 30-day mortality rate at 0.80% (2/250). There was a significant increase in pulmonary complications for those undergoing OE (OR 3.63 [95% confidence interval: 1.4-9.77]) when compared to RAMIE. LMIE is a safe and feasible option for esophagectomy when compared to OE and HE. The upcoming RCTs will provide further data to make a more robust interrogation of the surgical outcomes following RAMIE compared to conventional open surgery to determine equipoise or superiority of each approach as the era of minimally invasive esophagectomy continues to evolve (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Registration: CRD42023438790).

Comparative Analysis of Surgical Outcomes in Hybrid and Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Regional Russian Cancer Centre Experience.

Surgery is pivotal in treating esophageal cancer; hybrid esophagectomy, which combines minimally invasive and open techniques, shows promising outcomes. This historical cohort study compared the surgical outcomes of standard open esophagectomy with hybrid esophagectomy. Overall, 58 patients who underwent either hybrid or open esophagectomy at the Ulyanovsk Regional Clinical Oncology Clinic, Russia, from January 2015 to December 2023 were included. Data on demographics, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. The primary measures were overall complications and anastomotic leakage rates. Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson's Chi square test and t test via StatTech software (version 2.8.8). The number of removed lymph nodes was higher in the hybrid group (24±9) than in the open group (15±7) (P<0.001). In addition, the hybrid esophagectomy group showed significant reductions in operational time and blood loss (P<0.001 and P=0.014, respectively). The need for blood transfusion was higher in the open esophagectomy group (P=0.043). The postoperative length of stay in the hospital did not differ significantly between the two groups (open=20±8 days, hybrid=17±7 days, P=0.178). Cardiac complications were more frequent after an open esophagectomy (P=0.044). Hybrid esophagectomy reduced postoperative cardiac complications and other adverse events while maintaining satisfactory oncological outcomes. It had advantages over standard open esophagectomy in terms of lymphadenectomy, operative time, blood loss, and transfusion requirements, suggesting its efficacy for esophageal cancer patients.

425. PARACONDUIT HIATAL HERNIA FOLLOWING ESOPHAGECTOMY IN A PORTUGUESE TERTIARY CENTER

Abstract Background Esophageal Cancer is the seventh most common cancer worldwide with poor overall survival. As minimally invasive esophagectomy is becoming the new standard of care, an increased incidence of para-conduit hiatal hernias has been reported. Possible risk factors, other than those related to the operative approach have been suggested, such as location of the tumor. Histological type may also account for the increased incidence of hiatal hernias due to shift from esophageal squamous cell carcinomas to adenocarcinomas of the gastro-esophageal junction in Western world. We reviewed our center’s experience to determine whether the adoption of minimally invasive esophagectomy was associated with an increased incidence of para-conduit hernia. Methods A single-center, prospective database was used to retrospectively analyze consecutive patient who underwent esophagectomy between January 2007 and December 2023. Results Between January 2007 and December 2023, 497 patients were submitted to esophagectomy (Ivor-Lewis, McKeown or transhiatal) due to cancer (242 squamous cell carcinomas and 255 adenocarcinomas); 163 proximal esophageal cancers and 323 distal esophageal cancers. An hiatal hernia was diagnosed in 11 (2.21%) of 497 included patients submitted to esophagectomy; 5 (3.25%) after 154 totally minimally invasive esophagectomies, 3 (11.11%) after 27 hybrid esophagectomies and 3 (0.95%) after 316 open esophagectomies. The median days to diagnosis of hiatal hernia was 199 (6-3881) days. Surgical treatment consisted of cruroplasty in 1 patient, crurorrhaphy in 6 patients, reduction of herniated contents in 4 patients. The tumor was located proximally in 1 patient whereas the remaining 10 were at distal esophagus or at gastro-esophageal junction. Regarding pathologic evaluation, 2 were squamous cell carcinomas (0.82%) and 9 adenocarcinomas (3.53%). Conclusion In our experience, the adoption of minimally invasive esophagectomy has been associated with an increase of symptomatic para-conduit hernia, in line with the reports of recent meta-analyses. The prevalence of paraconduit hiatal hernia was also increased in adenocarcinomas, revealing the shift in the histological type in Western world. The true rate of herniation may be much higher, as our patients are not routinely submitted imaging diagnostic tests as part of their follow-up.

Short-Term Outcomes and Quality of Life Following Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in a Tertiary Care Center in Southern India.

With the advent of multimodality therapy and minimally invasive surgical approaches, patients suffering from carcinoma esophagus are showing promising outcomes. Hence, the frontier needs to be widened to assess the postoperative quality of life (QoL) of those surviving carcinoma esophagus. The objective of the study was to determine the short-term outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) /hybrid esophagectomies in carcinoma esophagus and the organ-specific QoL in survivors of MIE for carcinoma esophagus, and to compare health-related QoL in patients following MIE for carcinoma esophagus with the general population. A longitudinal study design was used to evaluate the short-term postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing MIE for carcinoma esophagus between July 1, 2021, to July 15, 2022, and analyze the QoL of those patients who survived at one year without tumor recurrence. QoL was assessed using the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QoL Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the EORTC QoL Questionnaire - Oesophageal Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-OES18). A total of 15 patients who underwent minimal invasive/hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal carcinomawere included. Of these, 13 patients underwent hybrid esophagectomy while two patients underwent thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy. Squamous cell carcinoma was observed as the most common histological variant (60%) while 33% were adenocarcinoma and 6.7% lymphoma. The most common site of the tumor was the lower one-third esophagus (60%). Nine out of 15 patients developed postoperative complications needing prolonged ICU stay. One major anastomotic leak as well as one conduit necrosis was observed among 15 cases operated. Median length of hospital stay was 16 (IQR 12-24). QoL was assessed among 12 patients at the one-year follow-up excluding mortality cases and patients with tumor recurrence. The patients following MIE for carcinoma esophagus were observed to have low scores in physical functioning, role functioning, and social functionwhen compared with the general population. Cognitive functioning and emotional function were not found to be significantly different. No statistically significant difference was observed in the global health status among the two groups. There was no significant difference found in the general symptoms score comparison of the MIE patients with the general population. When it comes to organ-specific symptom scales, reflux was observed as a major issue among the patients who survived carcinoma esophagus after undergoing MIE. Dysphagia and dry mouth received low scores suggestive of minor issues. Though analysis of global health QoL scores of those with postoperative complications and those who had uneventful recovery at one year revealed a higher score for the latter, it was not statistically significant. Postoperative complications can prolong hospital stay, delay resuming normal work, and affect the global QoL of patients compared with those who recovered uneventfully. Physical and role functions were observed to be deficient among survived patients when compared with the normal population. Nutritional prehabilitation, cutting-edge surgical practice including minimally invasive techniques, minimizing deviation from normal postoperative recovery by high-quality ICU care, and postoperative rehabilitation are the cornerstones to ensure better QoL.

Preemptive endoluminal vacuum therapy with the VACStent-A pilot study to reduce anastomotic leakage after Ivor Lewis hybrid esophagectomy.

Endoscopic treatment by vacuum therapy (EVT) or covered stents has emerged as an improved treatment option for upper gastrointestinal wall defects and is regarded as an improved treatment option for anastomotic leakage (AL) after esophagectomy. However, endoluminal EVT devices may lead to obstruction of the GI tract; and a high rate of migration and missing functional drainage has been shown for covered stents. The recently developed VACStent, a combination of a fully covered stent within a polyurethane sponge cylinder may overcome these issues allowing EVT while stent passage is still open. Initial clinical applications have demonstrated efficacy, practicability and safety in the treatment of esophageal leaks (AL). In this pilot study, 9 patients with high-risk anastomosis after neoadjuvant therapy undergoing hybrid esophagectomy received the VACStent in a preemptive setting for the assessment of the reduction of the AL rate, postoperative morbidity and mortality. Technical success of the application of the VACStent® was achieved in all interventions. One patient experienced anastomotic leakage 10 days after esophagectomy and was successfully treated with two consecutive VACStents and a VAC Sponge. In summary, mortality in-hospital was 0% and anastomotic healing was uneventful without septic episodes. No severe device-related adverse events (SADE) nor significant local bleeding or erosion could be observed. Oral intake of liquids or food was documented in all patients. The device handling was regarded uncomplicated. The preemptive application of the VACStent offers a promising new option for improved clinical treatment avoiding of critical situations in hybrid esophagectomy, which should be validated in a large clinical study.

Trends in surgical techniques for the treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer: the 2022 update.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the current practice in surgical techniques for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer surgery worldwide and to compare the results to the previous surveys in 2007 and 2014. An online survey was sent out among surgical members of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus, the World Organization for Specialized Studies on Disease of the Esophagus, the International Gastric Cancer Association, the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery of Great Britain and Ireland and Dutch gastroesophageal surgeons via the network of the investigators. In total, 260 surgeons completed the survey representing 52 countries and 6 continents; Europe 56%, Oceania 14%, Asia 14%, South-America 9%, North-America 7%. Of the responding surgeons, 39% worked in a hospital that performed >51 esophagectomies per year. Total minimally invasive esophagectomy was the preferred technique (53%) followed by hybrid esophagectomy (26%) of which 7% consisted of a minimally invasive thoracic phase and 19% of a minimally invasive abdominal phase. Total open esophagectomy was preferred by 21% of the respondents. Total minimally invasive esophagectomy was significantly more often performed in high-volume centers compared with non-high-volume centers (P= 0.002). Robotic assistance was used in 13% during the thoracic phase and 6% during the abdominal phase. Minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy has become the preferred approach for esophagectomy. Although 21% of the surgeons prefer an open approach, 26% of the surgeons perform a hybrid procedure which may reflect further transition towards the use of total minimally invasive esophagectomy.

424. ROBOT-ASSISTED AND CONVENTIONAL MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY ARE ASSOCIATED WITH BETTER POSTOPERATIVE RESULTS COMPARED TO HYBRID AND OPEN TRANSTHORACIC ESOPHAGECTOMY

Abstract Currently 4 surgical techniques are performed for transthoracic esophagectomy (open esophagectomy (OE), hybrid esophagectomy (HE), conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). Aim of this study was to compare these 4 different esophagectomy approaches regarding postoperative complications and short term oncologic outcomes. Between 2008 and 2019, consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction were included in this single center study. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of postoperative complications. Overall 422 patients (OE (n = 107), HE (n = 101), MIE (n = 91) and RAMIE (n = 123)) were evaluated. Uncomplicated postoperative course was observed in 27% (OE), 34% (HE), 53% (MIE), and 63% (RAMIE) of patients (p &amp;lt; 0.001). Pulmonary complications were observed in 57% (OE), 44% (HE), 28% (MIE), and 21% (RAMIE) of patients (p &amp;lt; 0.001). Cardiac complications were present in 25% (OE), 23% (HE), 9% (MIE), and 11% (RAMIE) of patients (p &amp;lt; 0.001). MIE and RAMIE were associated with fewer wound infections (p &amp;lt; 0.001). Median hospital stay was shorter for MIE and RAMIE went compared to OE and HE (p &amp;lt; 0.001). The lymph nodes yield differ significantly between the techniques (p &amp;lt; 0.001). Total minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE, RAMIE) was associated with a lower overall, pulmonary, cardiac and wound complication rate as well as a shorter hospital stay compared to open or hybrid approach (OE, HE). RAMIE resulted in higher lymph node harvest than MIE.

587. ROLE OF THORACOSCOPIC HAND-SEWN ESOPHAGO-GASTRIC ANASTOMOSIS IN 2-STAGE TOTALLY MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY. REPORT OF 200 CONSECUTIVE CASES

Abstract Esophagectomy is the mainstay of treatment of esophageal and gastro-esophageal junction cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy has been introduced in the 2000s in an effort to reduce post-operative pulmonary and cardiac complications. 2-stage totally minimally invasive esophagectomy combines laparoscopic abdominal phase followed by thoracoscopic thoracic phase. The rate limiting step of the procedure is the construction of esophago-gastric anastomosis. We aim to present our technique and results on hand-sewn thoracoscopic esophago-gastric anastomosis in prone position. This is prospective analysis of consecutive patients that underwent 2-stage totally minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal and gastro-esophageal junction Siewert type I-II cancers. All operations were identical in terms of patient positioning, lymphadenectomy and type of anastomosis formed. Study included adult patients with no upper age limit (&amp;gt;18 years); all hybrid esophagectomies, esophagectomies for malignancy and emergency operations were excluded from the study. The anastomosis was manually facilitated thoracoscopic in prone position, in 2-layers, using barbed sutures. Primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage and anastomotic stricture rate. Secondary endpoints were 30- and 90-day mortality rates. During a 5-years-period, n=200 consecutive patients underwent 2-stage totally minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer. Most patients were males. Median age was 65.5 years. Median operative time was 280 minutes while median suturing time for the anastomosis was 50 minutes. Anastomosis was thoracoscopic, hand-sewn constructed in prone position in all cases. There was no conversion to open. Anastomotic leak complicated n=5 patients (2.5%); n=4 were type I anastomotic leaks and n=1 was type I, which was treated with chest drainage. Anastomotic stricture was presented in n=13 patients (6.5%). 30-day mortality rate was 1% and 90-day mortality rate was 2.5%. Formation of the esophago-gastric anastomosis is one of the most challenging aspects during 2-stage totally minimally invasive esophagectomy. Most surgeons prefer the construction using circular or linear staplers. Our anastomotic technique, present a safe and effective anastomosis, with favorable clinical outcomes. It can be reproduced and established in the hand of experts, offering all the advantages of manual anastomosis and reduction of devastating post-operative anastomotic leakage, which still complicates stapled constructed anastomosis with significant incidence.

Robot-assisted transthoracic hybrid esophagectomy versus open and laparoscopic hybrid esophagectomy: propensity score matched analysis of short-term outcome

PurposeMinimally invasive en-bloc esophagectomy is associated with a reduction of postoperative morbidity. This was demonstrated for both total minimally invasive and hybrid esophagectomy. However, little is known about any benefits of robotic assistance compared to the conventional minimally invasive technique, especially in hybrid procedures.MethodsFor this retrospective study, all consecutive patients who had undergone elective esophagectomy with circular stapled intrathoracic anastomosis using the open and the minimally invasive hybrid technique at the University Hospital Magdeburg, from January 2010 to March 2021 were considered for analysis.ResultsIn total, 137 patients (60.4%) had undergone open esophagectomy. In 45 patients (19.8%), the laparoscopic hybrid technique and in 45 patients (19.8%), the robot-assisted hybrid technique were applied. In propensity score matching analysis comparing the open with the robotic hybrid technique, significant differences were found in favor of the robotic technique (postoperative morbidity, p < 0.01; hospital length of stay, p < 0.01; number of lymph nodes retrieved, p = 0.048). In propensity score matching analysis comparing the laparoscopic with the robotic hybrid technique, a significant reduction of the rate of postoperative delayed gastric emptying (p = 0.02) was found for patients who had undergone robotic esophagectomy. However, the operation time was significantly longer (p < 0.01).ConclusionsEn-bloc esophagectomy using the robotic hybrid technique is associated with a significant reduction of postoperative morbidity and of the hospital length of stay when compared to the open approach. However, when compared to the laparoscopic hybrid technique, only few advantages could be demonstrated.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) vs. hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: propensity score matched short-term outcome analysis of a European high-volume center

IntroductionTransthoracic esophagectomy is a highly complex and sophisticated procedure with high morbidity rates and a significant mortality. Surgical access has consistently become less invasive, transitioning from open esophagectomy to hybrid esophagectomy (HE) then to totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), and most recently to robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE), with each step demonstrating improved patient outcomes. Aim of this study with more than 600 patients is to complete a propensity-score matched comparison of postoperative short-term outcomes after highly standardized RAMIE vs. HE in a European high volume center.Patients and MethodsSix hundred and eleven patients that underwent transthoracic Ivor–Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between May 2016 and May 2021 were included in the study. In January 2019, we implemented an updated robotic standardized anastomotic technique using a circular stapler and ICG (indocyanine green) for RAMIE cases. Data were retrospectively analyzed from a prospectively maintained IRB-approved database. Outcomes of patients undergoing standardized RAMIE from January 2019 to May 2021 were compared to our overall cohort from May 2016–April 2021 (HE) after a propensity-score matching analysis was performed.ResultsSix hundred and eleven patients were analyzed. 107 patients underwent RAMIE. Of these, a total of 76 patients underwent a robotic thoracic reconstruction using the updated standardized circular stapled anastomosis (RAMIE group). A total of 535 patients underwent HE (Hybrid group). Seventy patients were propensity-score matched in each group and analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics. RAMIE patients had a significantly shorter ICU stay (p = 0.0218). Significantly more patients had no postoperative complications (Clavien Dindo 0) in the RAMIE group [47.1% vs. 27.1% in the HE group (p = 0.0225)]. No difference was seen in lymph node yield and R0 resection rates. Anastomotic leakage rates when matched were 14.3% in the hybrid group vs. 4.3% in the RAMIE group (p = 0.07).ConclusionOur analysis confirms the safety and feasibility of RAMIE and HE in a large cohort after propensity score matching. A regular postoperative course (Clavien–Dindo 0) and a shorter ICU stay were seen significantly more often after RAMIE compared to HE. Furthermore it shows that both procedures provide excellent short-term oncologic outcomes, regarding lymph node harvest and R0 resection rates. A randomized controlled trial comparing RAMIE and HE is still pending and will hopefully contribute to ongoing discussions.

Robot-assisted and conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy are associated with better postoperative results compared to hybrid and open transthoracic esophagectomy

BackgroundCurrently 4 surgical techniques are performed for transthoracic esophagectomy (open esophagectomy (OE), hybrid esophagectomy (HE), conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). Aim of this study was to compare these 4 different esophagectomy approaches regarding postoperative complications and short term oncologic outcomes. MethodsBetween 2008 and 2019, consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction were included in this single center study. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of postoperative complications. ResultsOverall 422 patients (OE (n = 107), HE (n = 101), MIE (n = 91) and RAMIE (n = 123)) were evaluated. Uncomplicated postoperative course was observed in 27% (OE), 34% (HE), 53% (MIE), and 63% (RAMIE) of patients (p < 0.001). Pulmonary complications were observed in 57% (OE), 44% (HE), 28% (MIE), and 21% (RAMIE) of patients (p < 0.001). Cardiac complications were present in 25% (OE), 23% (HE), 9% (MIE), and 11% (RAMIE) of patients (p < 0.001). MIE and RAMIE were associated with fewer wound infections (p < 0.001). Median hospital stay after MIE (13 days) and RAMIE (12 days) was shorter compared to OE (20 days) and HE (17 days) (p < 0.001). A median number of 21 (OE), 23 (HE), 23 (MIE), and 31 (RAMIE) lymph nodes was harvested (p < 0.001). ConclusionTotal minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE, RAMIE) was associated with a lower overall, pulmonary, cardiac and wound complication rate as well as a shorter hospital stay compared to open or hybrid approach (OE, HE). RAMIE resulted in higher lymph node harvest than MIE.

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

Abstract 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.

545 INCIDENCE OF INVOLVEMENT OF PARATRACHEAL LYMPHNODES IN SIEWERT AEG-I TUMORS

Abstract Transthoracic esophagectomy with 2-field-lymphadenectomy (LAD) is the state of the art treatment of resectable adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus (Siewert-Stein AEG type I) and may be performed in AEG II cardia cancers. However, it remains unclear whether paratracheal LAD contributes to a survival benefit. In this study we collected data regarding lymph node involvement of paratracheal nodes. Methods From 2014 to 2019 consecutive patients were included in the prospective analysis. Patients underwent hybrid or open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and 2-field LAD. Paratracheal tissue was removed from the right side of the trachea along the superior vena cava above the azygos vein up to the the upper thoracic aperture. Paratracheal lymph nodes were histologically evaluated separately from the nodes of other stations. Results Ninety-five consecutive patients (12 were female, mean age 67, sd 10, AEG I 84, AEG II 11) were included in the prospective observation study. Seventy-two and 5 patients preoperatively received chemotherapy or radiochemotherapy, respectively. All of them underwent transthoracic esophagectomy (Ivor Lewis 93, McKeown 2—because of coexisting ultralong segment Barrett esophagus). Overall the mean (sd) lymph node count was 37 (12). In the right paratracheal region we found a median of 6 lymph nodes (range;1–22). In 42 (44%) patients positive lymph nodes were recorded, but there was no case with right paratracheal node involvement. Conclusion In the present study paratracheal lymph node involvement was evaluated after transthoracic esophagecotmy with 2-field lymphadenectomy. Remarkably, despite a high proportion of overall lymphatic involvement we did not observe any paratracheal nodal metastasis. Larger studies may show whether paratracheal lyphmadenectomy is necessary during radical esophagectomy for AEG I and AEG II cancers.

Quality of oncological resection criteria in minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Even though minimally invasive esophageal surgery (MIE) is spreading, questions remain regarding its oncological outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of oncological resection criteria in MIE. All patients undergoing a two-way Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal or junctional cancer between 2010 and 2020 in a single tertiary upper gastrointestinal surgery ward were analyzed retrospectively. The following oncological criteria were analyzed: lymph node (LN) harvest and location, positive lymph node rate, margins, and R0 rates. They were compared between the MIE group (thoracoscopy + laparoscopy) and the hybrid group (H/O, thoracotomy + laparoscopy). Among the 240 patients included, 34 (14%) had MIE and 206 a hybrid esophagectomy. Main surgical indication was lower thoracic adenocarcinoma and the rate of neoadjuvant treatments administered (chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) was comparable between both groups (p = 1.0). LN harvest was significantly higher in the MIE group (31 ± 9 vs. 28 ± 9, p = 0.04) as well as thoracic LN harvest (14 ± 7 vs. 11 ± 5, p = 0.002). When analyzing patients according to T stage and response to neoadjuvant treatments, patients with T1 and T2 tumors and patients with a poor pathological response (TRG3, 4, 5) had a significantly higher LN harvest when undergoing a minimally invasive approach (p = 0.021 and p = 0.01, respectively). Positive LN rates (1.26 ± 3.63 in the MIE group vs. 1.60 ± 2.84 in the H/O group, p = 0.061), R0 rates (97% vs. 98.5%, p = 0.46) as well as proximal (p = 0.083), distal (p = 0.063), and lateral (p = 0.15) margins were comparable between both approaches. MIE seems oncologically safe and may even be better than the open approach in terms of LN harvest especially in patients with T1 and T2 tumors and in poor responders.

Case of successful treatment of a patient with ischemictracheoesophageal and tracheopleural fistulas after a mckeown hybrid esophagectomy

The occurrence of tracheal fistulas of ischemic genesis combined with the failure of esophagogastroanastomosis and the communication between them is a rare and formidable complication after esophagectomy with mediastinal lymphadenectomy due to its anatomical position and extensiveness. However, it is insufficiently documented in the literature, both in terms of treatment and in terms of its causes. This observation aims to demonstrate the rare cause of this complication and the atypical successful treatment. In this case, a patient with squamous cell carcinoma G2 of the middle third of the esophagus and TNM stage cT3NxM0. On the McKeown thoracoscopic-laparotomy esophagectomy intraoperatively a short arterial vessel with a diameter of about 3 mm, which passed through the paracancerous infiltration and supplied blood to the esophagus and trachea revealed. The vessel was not isolated from the infiltrate, but was clipped and crossed between the aorta and infiltrate to maintain surgery ablastic. On the 7th day after the operation the insolvency of esophagogastroanastomosis, the fistula of the trachea with mediastinum and the communication between the leak of esophagogastroanastomosis and the fistula of the trachea were diagnosed. We consider this combination as a special case of esophagogastroanastomosis fistula, complicated by the communication between the right pleural cavity and pneumothorax. According to our experience, partial leak of esophagogastroanastomosis successfully heals by secondary tension within 10–15 days against the background of cervicotomic wound drainage and feeding through a nasointestinal tube. In this case there was a leak of saliva in the mediastinum and its penetration into the lumen of the trachea and the right pleural cavity. Surgical diversion of the fistula and stenting of the trachea were considered, but not applied, as the fistula in our opinion was controlled, but the aggressive content of the gastric conduit prevented healing. The patient was on assisted lung ventilation with minimal pressure support and inflow increased oxygen fractio. For this reason, we considered the best stenting of the esophagogastroanastomosis leak area to be covered with a stent in order to stop the aggressive content of the gastric stem from entering the fistula, which led to the successful treatment of the developed severe complication. It should be noted that this method of treatment may be ineffective in patients who need pressure support during ventilation.

Paraconduit Hernia in the Era of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Underdiagnosed?

There is a need to compare the proportions, risk factors, and natural histories of postesophagectomy paraconduit hernias in minimally invasive and open esophagectomies. This is a single-center, retrospective cohort study of esophageal cancer surgery performed between 2007 and 2017. Postesophagectomy paraconduit hernias were identified on cross-sectional imaging. Patient charts were reviewed to describe the management and natural history. Between 2007 and 2017, 391 esophagectomies were performed. After exclusions, 347 patients remained, 135 of whom were total minimally invasive esophagectomies (MIEs) (39%). Postoperative paraconduit hernias developed in 10% of patients. Median time to diagnosis was 258 days. Of 135 MIEs, 20 had a paraconduit hernia (15%) compared with 16 of 212 open or hybrid esophagectomies (8%; P= .03). Hernias were symptomatic in 13 patients (36%) and asymptomatic in 23 (64%), which were detected radiographically. Repair was performed in 11 of 13 symptomatic patients (85%), compared with 3 of 23 asymptomatic patients (13%). In the asymptomatic group, only 1 required emergency repair (4.3%). There was a trend toward a greater proportion of symptomatic paraconduit hernias compared with asymptomatic patients (77% versus 43%; P= .08) in MIE patients. Factors associated with the development of paraconduit hernias on univariate analysis were younger age (P= .02) and not receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (P= .01) or neoadjuvant radiation (P= .03). Postesophagectomy paraconduit hernia is more common after totally minimally invasive esophagectomy compared with open or hybrid techniques. One third are symptomatic and the remainder are detected only radiographically. Repair of asymptomatic hernias consider the patient's cancer prognosis.

232 HYBRID MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER: FIVE-YEAR SURVIVAL RESULTS OF THE MIRO TRIAL.

Abstract Multiple randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the short term benefits of (hybrid) minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) over open esophagectomy. Data regarding long term results are more conflicting with similar or even better results in the MIE arm. In this follow-up study of the MIRO-trial we evaluated the long-term 5-year outcomes including overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) as well as the pattern of disease recurrence, along with evaluation of potential prognostic factors affecting these outcomes. Methods From October 2009 till April 2012, we conducted a multicentre, open-label, prospective, randomized, controlled trial including patients who were diagnosed with thoracic esophageal cancer and eligible for curative surgical resection (Ivor-Lewis procedure). Patients were randomized between hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy. The primary end-point of the initial MIRO trial was major intra- and postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo ≥2) within 30 days after surgery. The primary end-points of this follow-up study were OS and DFS. Additional secondary end points were defined as site of disease recurrence and potential prognostic or mediating factors associated with DFS and OS. Results 207 patients underwent randomization. The median follow-up was 58,2 (95% CI, 56,5– 63,8) months. The 5y OS was 59% (95% CI, 48–68) and 47% (95% CI, 37–57) in the hybrid- and open-procedure group respectively (HR, 0,71, 95% CI, 0,48-1,06). The 5y DFS was 52% (95% CI, 42–61) in the hybrid-procedure group vs. 44% (95%CI, 34–53) in the open-procedure group. (HR 0.81 (95% CI, 0,55-1,17). There was no significant difference in recurrence rate (p = 0.519) or -location (p = 0.692) between groups. In a multivariate analysis, major postoperative and pulmonary complications were identified as prognostic factors of impaired OS (p &amp;lt; 0.0001;p = 0.005) and DFS (p = 0.002;p = 0.006). Conclusion Besides a significant reduction in postoperative overall and pulmonary complication rate, minimally invasive (hybrid) esophagectomy offers long-term oncological results that are at least equivalent to open esophagectomy. Postoperative and pulmonary complications are independent prognostic factors for impaired overall- and disease-free survival, providing additional proof that minimally invasive esophagectomy could even be associated with better long-term oncological results compared to open esophagectomy mediated by a reduction in postoperative complications.

Completely Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Hybrid Esophagectomy for Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Junctional Cancer: Clinical and Short-Term Oncological Outcomes.

Minimally invasive surgery for resectable esophageal and gastroesophageal junctional (GEJ) cancer significantly reduces morbidity when compared with open surgery, as is evident from published landmark trials. Comparison of outcomes between hybrid esophagectomy (HE) and completely minimally invasive esophagectomy (CMIE) remains unclear. We aimed to ascertain whether CMIE is associated with less postoperative complications compared with HE without oncological compromise. All consecutive two-stage HEs and CMIEs performed between 2016 and 2018 were included. All procedures were performed with an intrathoracic anastomosis. Primary clinical outcomes were pulmonary infective and overall complications within 30days of surgery, while primary oncological outcomes included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at both 6months and to date. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative variables and postoperative clinical parameters. Overall, 98 patients had CMIEs and 49 patients had HEs. There were no baseline differences between the two groups. Thirty-day postoperative pulmonary infection rates were lower in the CMIE group compared with the HE group (12.2% vs. 28.6%; p = 0.014), and 30-day overall postoperative complication rates were also lower following CMIE (35.7% vs. 59.2%; p = 0.007). OS and DFS were similar between the two groups at 6months (p = 0.201 and p = 0.109, respectively). CMIE is associated with less pulmonary infective and overall postoperative complications compared with HE for resectable esophageal and GEJ cancer. No intergroup difference was observed regarding short-term survival and cancer recurrence in patients undergoing CMIE and HE. A randomized controlled trial comparing the two operative approaches is required to validate these findings.

Propensity score-matched comparison between open and minimal invasive hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma.

This study compared the outcome between patients who had an open and those who had a hybrid esophagectomy for T1 or T3 esophageal adenocarcinoma (eAC). No clear data are available concerning this question based on T-category. Two groups of patients with esophagectomy and high intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy for eAC were analyzed: hybrid (laparoscopy + right thoracotomy) (n = 835) and open (laparotomy + right thoracotomy) (n = 188). Outcome criteria were 30- and 90-day mortality, R0-resection rate (R0), number of resected lymph nodes (rLNs), and 5-year survival rate (5y-SR). For each type of surgery, three patient groups were analyzed: pT1-carcinoma (group-1), cT3Nx and neoadjuvant chemoradiation (group-2), and pT3N0-3 without neoadjuvant therapy (group-3). The comparison was based on a propensity score matching in relation of 1:2 for open versus hybrid. In group-1 (38 open vs 76 hybrid) R0-resection (100%), 30-day mortality (0%), 90-day mortality (2.6% vs 0%), and rLNs (median 29.5 vs 28.5) were not significantly different. The pN0-rate was 76% in the open and 92% in the hybrid group (p = 0.036). Accordingly, the 5y-SR was 69% and 87% (p = 0.016), but the prognosis of the subgroups pT1pN0 or pT1pN+ was not significantly different between open or hybrid. In group-2 (68 open vs 135 hybrid) R0-resection (97%), 30-day (0% vs 0.7%) and 90-day (4%) mortality, rLNs (28.5 vs 26), and 5y-SR (36% vs 41%) were not significantly different. In group-3 (37 open vs 75 hybrid) R0, postoperative mortality, rLNs, and 5y-SR were not significantly different. In a propensity score-matched comparison of patients with an open or hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma the quality of oncologic resection, postoperative mortality and prognosis are not different.

Long-term outcome in patients operated with hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal cancer – a cohort study

Background: Over the past two decades, hybrid and total minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer (EC) has increasingly been implemented with the aim to improve morbidity, functional result and ultimately the prognosis in these patients. However, more results are warranted and in this single-center study we report long-time outcome in a cohort of cancer patients treated with hybrid esophagectomy (HE).Material and methods: Hundred and nine patients with EC operated with HE from November 2007 to June 2013 were included. Clinical, pathological and survival data were retrieved from the patient administration system and the Norwegian Cause of Death Registry. Patients alive were asked to fill out the Ogilvie dysphagia score, EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-OG25. Survival was analyzed by Kaplan–Meier’s method and prognostic factors by uni- and multivariable Cox regression analyses.Results: Median overall follow-up time was 55 months (range 2–135) after R0-2 resection (n = 109) and 76 months (5–135) for R0 resection (n = 100). Five-year overall survival rate was 49% and 53%, respectively. Anastomotic leakage rate and 90-days mortality were 5% and 2%, respectively. Six patients (6%) had later surgery for metastases to mediastinum, hepatoduodenal ligament, brain, lung, liver or bladder median 26 months (4–51) after HE. Forty-one out of 51 patients alive (80%) filled out questionnaires after median 65.5 months (63–123) follow-up. All patients could eat normal food without (n = 37) or with (n = 4) problems. Nearly, half of the patients reported problems with reflux, one-third experienced fatigue and anxiety while one out of four had weight loss and episodes of dyspnea.Conclusions: In this patient series, HE offered low postoperative mortality and good overall long-term survival. Most survivors maintained good quality of life more than five years post treatment. There was a low rate of serious postoperative complications.