Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Group Research Articles

Long-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus minimally invasive esophagectomy in patients with thoracic esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched study

BackgroundRecently, robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has gained popularity worldwide. Some studies have compared the long-term results of RAMIE and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). However, there are no reports on the long-term outcomes of RAMIE in Japan. This study compared the long-term outcomes of RAMIE and MIE.MethodsThis retrospective study included 86 patients with thoracic esophageal cancer who underwent RAMIE or MIE at our hospital from June 2010 to December 2016. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed, incorporating co-variables such as confounders or risk factors derived from the literature and clinical practice. These variables included age, sex, body mass index, alcohol consumption, smoking history, American Society of Anesthesiologists stage, comorbidities, tumor location, histology, clinical TNM stage, and preoperative therapy. The primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints were 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence rates.ResultsBefore PSM, the RAMIE group had a longer operation time (min) than the MIE group (P = 0.019). RAMIE also exhibited significantly lower blood loss volume (mL) (P < 0.001) and fewer three-field lymph node dissections (P = 0.028). Postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo: CD ≥ 2) were significantly lower in the RAMIE group (P = 0.04), and postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter than the MIE group (P < 0.001). After PSM, the RAMIE and MIE groups consisted of 26 patients each. Blood loss volume was significantly smaller (P = 0.012), postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo ≥ 2) were significantly lower (P = 0.021), and postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter (P < 0.001) in the RAMIE group than those in the MIE group. The median observation period was 63 months. The 5-year OS rates were 73.1% and 80.8% in the RAMIE and MIE groups, respectively (P = 0.360); the 5-year DFS rates were 76.9% and 76.9% in the RAMIE and MIE groups, respectively (P = 0.749). Six of 26 patients (23.1%) in each group experienced recurrence, with a median recurrence period of 41.5 months in the RAMIE group and 22.5 months in the MIE group.ConclusionsCompared with MIE, RAMIE led to no differences in long-term results, suggesting that RAMIE is a comparable technique.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for thoracic lymph node dissection in patients with squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective comparative cohort study.

In Asia, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) accounts for more than 90% of esophageal cancer cases and can be treated with minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE); however, MIE has certain technical limitations in resecting lymph nodes. The advantages of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) surgery, such as the high-definition three-dimensional (3D) vision and the presence of the EndoWrist, facilitates movement in challenging anatomical regions. However, few studies have compared the postoperative outcomes between RAMIE with MIE for the lymph node dissection of patients with ESCC. We identified 285 patients with ESCC who underwent surgical resection between January 2019 and April 2023. Of these patients, 270 met the screening criteria and were enrolled in our study. These patients were then divided into two groups according to the thoracic approach: MIE (n=168) or RAMIE cohort (n=102). The aim of this study was to investigate the possible advantages in terms of postoperative outcomes of RAMIE over MIE for thoracic lymph node dissection. Most patients were male (97.4%). According to the pathological-stage of esophageal cancer, 5 (1.9%), 99 (37.1%), 72 (27.0%), 82 (30.7%), and 9 (3.4%) patients were pathological-stage 0, I, II, III, and IV, respectively. The number of regional lymph node resections in the RAMIE cohort was significantly higher than that in the MIE group for the following regions: the left tracheobronchial lymph nodes (106tbL) (P<0.001), paratracheal lymph nodes [106pre] (P=0.011), the sub-longitudinal lymph nodes [107] (P<0.001), the left main bronchial lymph nodes [109L] (P<0.001), the right main bronchial lymph nodes [109R] (P<0.001), the sub-thoracic periesophageal lymph nodes [110] (P=0.004), and the supradiaphragmatic lymph nodes [111] (P<0.001). By comparing MIE cohort with RAMIE cohort, the transthoracic approach with RAMIE yielded a greater total number of thoracic lymph nodes dissected [MIE: mean 20.82, standard deviation (SD) 9.45; RAMIE: mean 26.07, SD 9.28; P<0.001] and a greater total number of lymph node groups that underwent thoracic lymph node dissection (MIE: mean 5.28, SD 1.94; RAMIE: mean 7.29, SD 1.77; P<0.001). Our study shows that RAMIE may be more effective than MIE in terms of the number thoracic lymph nodes dissected and the extent of dissection. Moreover, RAMIE may be not associated with additional surgical complications.

Robotic assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Esophagectomy is the gold standard treatment for resectable esophageal cancer; however, there is insufficient evidence to indicate potential advantages over standard minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in treating thoracic esophageal cancer. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) bridges the gap between open and minimally invasive surgery. In this single-center retrospective review, we compare the clinical outcomes of EC patients treated with MIE and RAMIE. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent surgery at Qilu Hospital between August 2020 and August 2022, including 159 patients who underwent MIE and 35 patients who received RAMIE. The intraoperative, postoperative, and preoperative patient characteristics in both groups were evaluated. Except for height, the MIE and RAMIE groups showed no significant differences in preoperative features (P>0.05). Further, there were no significant differences in intraoperative indices, including TNM stage of the resected tumor, tumor tissue type, or ASA score, between the two groups. However, statistically significant differences were found in some factors; the RAMIE group had a shorter operative time, less intraoperative bleeding, and more lymph nodes removed compared to the MIE group. Patients in the RAMIE group reported less discomfort and greater chest drainage on the first postoperative day than patients in the MIE group; however, there were no differences in other features between the two datasets. By comparing the clinical characteristics and outcomes of RAMIE with MIE, this study verified the feasibility and safety of RAMIE for esophageal cancer. Overall, RAMIE resulted in more complete lymph node clearance, shorter operating time, reduced surgical hemorrhage, reduced postoperative discomfort, and chest drainage alleviation in patients. To investigate the function of RAMIE in esophageal cancer, we propose undertaking a future clinical trial with long-term follow-up to analyze tumor clearance, recurrence, and survival after RAMIE.

The influence of minimally invasive esophagectomy on wound infection in patients undergoing esophageal cancer surgery: A meta‐analysis

AbstractThe impacts of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in comparison with open esophagectomy (OE) on postoperative complications, wound infections and hospital length of stay in patients with esophageal carcinoma (ESCA) using meta‐analysis to provide reliable evidence for clinical practice. A search strategy was developed and computer searches were performed on Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, China Biomedical Literature Database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases for clinical studies that reported the effects of MIE in comparison with OE in patients with ESCA. The retrieval time was from their inception to October 2023. Two authors independently performed literature screening, and data extraction and literature quality evaluation were performed separately for the included studies. Meta‐analysis was performed using Stata 17.0 software. Overall, 26 studies with 2427 ESCA patients were included in this study, of which 1203 were in the MIE group and 1224 were in the OE group. The results showed that, compared with OE, ESCA patients who underwent MIE were less likely to develop postoperative wound infections (odds ratio [OR] = 0.31, 95% confidence intervals [CIs]: 0.20–0.49, p &lt; 0.001) and complications (OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.18–0.30, p &lt; 0.001) and have a shorter hospital stay (standardized mean difference = −1.93, 95% CI: −2.38 to −1.48, p &lt; 0.001). MIE has advantages over OE in terms of shorter hospital stay and reduced incidence of postoperative wound infections and complications.

148. COMPARISON OF EARLY POSTOPERATIVE OUTCOME BETWEEN OPEN AND MINIMALLY INVASIVE TRANSTHORACIC ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

Abstract Background Esophagectomy is a highly invasive surgical procedure for esophageal cancer, with open thoracotomy associated with a significant risk of pulmonary complications. Minimally invasive techniques, such as minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), are expected to reduce these complications and enhance postoperative recovery. This study aimed to compare the early postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent open esophagectomy versus MIE. Methods We conducted a retrospective study using a single-center database from January 1, 2010, to February 28, 2023, including patients aged 18–90 years with a resectable lesion of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction who underwent either open transthoracic esophagectomy or MIE (thoracoscopic/robotic-assisted). Patient data, surgical procedures, interventions, and early outcomes (within 30 days of operation) were collected and analyzed. The study included a total of 76 patients, with 50 patients in open esophagectomy group and 26 patients in MIE group. The primary outcome was the incidence of pulmonary complications during the hospital stay, and logistic regression was used for data analysis. Results The overall incidence of pulmonary complications was 37 cases (74%) in the open esophagectomy group and 14 cases (53.8%) in the MIE group, with the incidence of pulmonary infection occurring in 19 cases (38%) and 8 cases (30.8%), respectively. Perioperative mortality was 1 cases (2%) in the open esophagectomy group and 0 cases (0%) in the MIE group. After adjusting for age, sex, BMI, smoking, COPD, and operative time, the open esophagectomy group had a 4.29 times higher risk of pulmonary complications than the MIE group (odds ratio 4.29, 95% confidence interval 1.30–14.16; p = 0.017). Conclusion Our study demonstrates that MIE is associated with a lower incidence of pulmonary complications, reduced blood loss, and shorter ICU stays compared to open esophagectomy. Rates of anastomosis leakage, vocal cord paralysis, and hospital stays were comparable. These findings support the feasibility and safety of MIE, potentially improving surgical outcomes and enhancing postoperative recovery for the treatment of esophageal cancer.

Impact of minimally invasive total mesoesophageal excision and minimally invasive esophagectomy on failure patterns of locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a matched cohort study with long-term follow-up.

The effects of minimally invasive total mesoesophageal excision (MITME) on the long-term prognosis of locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remain unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the static and dynamic failure patterns of MITME and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for locally advanced ESCC. We use propensity score matching (PSM) method to analyze the postoperative failure patterns of the two groups. Cumulative event curves were analyzed for cumulative incidence of failure between different groups, and independent prognostic factors were assessed using time-dependent multivariate analyses. The risk of dynamic failure calculated at 12-month intervals was compared between the two groups using the lifetime table. A total of 366 ESCC patients were studied by 1:1 PSM for T stage and TNM stage (MITME group, n = 183; MIE group, n = 183). In the matched cohort, there was significant differences between the MITME and MIE groups in the failure pattern of regional lymph node recurrence (0.5 vs 3.8%, P = 0.032) and non-tumor death (10.9 vs 31.7%, P < 0.001). The cumulative event curve found that the 5-year cumulative failure rate was lower in the MITME group than in the MIE group (3.3 vs 17.1%, P = 0.026) after 5years of survival. In addition, multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that MIE was an independent poor prognostic factor for a high cumulative failure rate in locally advanced ESCC patients at 5years after surgery (HR:4.110; 95% CI 1.047-16.135; P = 0.043). The dynamic risk curve showed that the MITME group had a lower risk of failure within 5years after surgery than the MIE group. Considering that MITME can significantly improve the postoperative failure pattern and the benefit lasts for at least 5years, it is feasible to use MITME as a treatment for locally advanced ESCC.

Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (NST 1502): a multicenter prospective cohort study

BackgroundWhether minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open esophagectomy (OE) in the treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is still uncertain. Therefore, this multicenter prospective study aimed to compare MIE with OE in postoperative parameters and long-term survival. MethodsAll hospitalized patients with cT1b-3N0–1M0 thoracic ESCC treated by MIE or OE were enrolled from 19 selected centers from April 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018. The propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to minimize the selection bias. The basic clinicopathological characteristics and 3-year overall survival (OS) as well as disease-free survival (DFS) of two groups were compared by R version 3.6.2. ResultsMIE were performed in 1,387 patients and OE in 335 patients. 335 cases in each group were finally matched by PSM, and no significant differences in the essential demographic characteristics were observed between the MIE and OE groups after PSM. Compared with OE, MIE had significantly less intraoperative bleeding, less total drainage volume, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and harvested significantly more lymph nodes (LNs) (all P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the major postoperative complications and death rates between MIE and OE. The 3-year OS and DFS were 77.0% and 68.1% in the MIE group versus 69.3% and 60.9% in the OE group (OS: P = 0.03; DFS: P = 0.09), and the rates were 75.1% and 66.5% in the MIE group versus 66.9% and 58.6% in the OE group for stage cII patients (OS: P = 0.04, DFS: P = 0.09), respectively. ConclusionsCompared with OE, MIE is a safe and effective treatment approach with similar mortality and morbidity. It has the advantages in harvesting more LNs, improving postoperative recovery and survival of stage cII ESCC patients.

Patterns of Recurrence and Long-Term Survival of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Open Esophagectomy for Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: a Propensity Score–Matched Analysis

BackgroundThe use of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) as a treatment for patients with esophageal cancer has recently become more common worldwide. However, differences in the pattern of recurrence between MIE and open esophagectomy (OE) using the transthoracic approach have not been fully investigated, particularly in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. MethodsWe searched the prospective databases of two institutes for patients with esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by esophagectomy between 2011 and 2018. Propensity score–matched analysis was performed to reduce bias from confounding patient-related variables. Operative outcomes, regionally harvested lymph nodes (LNs), recurrence pattern, and prognosis were investigated in two groups. ResultsWe identified 410 patients who underwent OE (n = 263) and MIE (n = 147). After propensity score matching, 131 pairs of patients were selected. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics after matching. The total number of harvested LNs in both groups was similar (55.1 vs. 58.9, P = 0.132). The incidence of LN recurrence in the MIE group was significantly lower than that in the OE group (27% vs. 15%, P = 0.010). In particular, the incidence of mediastinal LN recurrence in the MIE group was significantly lower than that in the OE group (16% vs. 6%, P = 0.017). There were no significant differences between the two groups in hematogenous (19% vs.12%, P = 0.173), dissemination (5% vs. 4%, P = 0.769), local (4% vs. 1%. P = 0.213), and other recurrence (3% vs. 3%, P = 1.000). The 3-year disease-free and overall survival of MIE were significantly better than OE (71.4% vs. 50.5%, P = 0.004 and 80.3% vs. 61.2%, P = 0.002, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that the thoracic approach (OE vs. MIE) (HR 1.93, P = 0.004) was an independent prognostic factor, along with the pathological N stage (HR 3.05, P < 0.001). ConclusionsMIE has less intramediastinal LN recurrence than OE and may lead to a better long-term prognosis in patients with advanced esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Will robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy improve patient outcomes compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy?

Aim: To determine if introducing a standardized minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) to robot-assisted MIE (RAMIE) improves the short-term patient outcomes. Methods: A total of 292 patients with esophageal cancer underwent thoracic esophagectomy [MIE (n = 208); RAMIE (n = 84)] at Aichi Cancer Center Hospital between January 2019 and August 2022. The cumulative sum (CUSUM) method was used to analyze the learning curve for RAMIE. The MIE and RAMIE surgical and postoperative outcomes were also analyzed retrospectively. Propensity score matching was used to compensate for the selection bias. Results: The CUSUM plot of the console time reached a plateau in the 29th case and began to decrease in the 43rd case. Therefore, we defined phase I (introductory phase) up to the 28th case, phase II from the 29th - 42nd case, and phase III from the 43rd case onward. The median thoracic operative time was significantly longer in the RAMIE group than the MIE group in phase I (P &lt; 0.001); however, the median RAMIE console time was 227.5, 212, and 182 min in phases I-III, respectively, compared to a median MIE thoracic operative time of 232 min. The incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) palsy was significantly less after phase II for RAMIE (12.5%) compared to MIE (25%; P = 0.04). The incidence of RLN palsy was also decreased in phases II and III for RAMIE after matching (13%; P = 0.04). Conclusion: Standardization of RAMIE may decrease the incidence of RLN palsy in patients compared to MIE.

Comparisons of minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy in lymph node metastasis/dissection for thoracic esophageal cancer.

The study aimed to clarify the characteristics of lymph node metastasis (LNM) and to compare the oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with open esophagectomy (OE) in terms of lymph node dissection (LND) in thoracic esophageal cancer patients. The data from esophageal cancer patients who underwent MIE or OE from January 2016 to January 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. The characteristics of LNM in thoracic esophageal cancer were discussed, and the differences in numbers of LND, LND rate, and LNM rate/degree of upper mediastinum between MIE and OE were compared. For overall characteristics of LNM in 249 included patients, the highest rate of LNM was found in upper mediastinum, while LNM rate in middle and lower mediastinum, and abdomen increased with the tumor site moving down. The patients were divided into MIE ( n = 204) and OE groups ( n = 45). In terms of number of LND, there were significant differences in upper mediastinum between MIE and OE groups (8 [5, 11] vs. 5 [3, 8], P < 0.001). The comparative analysis of regional lymph node showed there was no significant difference except the subgroup of upper mediastinal 2L and 4L group (3 [1, 5] vs. 0 [0, 2], P < 0.001 and 0 [0, 2] vs. 0, P = 0.012, respectively). Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in terms of LND rate except 2L (89.7% [183/204] vs. 71.1% [32/45], P = 0.001) and 4L (41.2% [84/204] vs . 22.2% [10/45], P = 0.018) groups. For LNM rate of T3 stage, there was no significant difference between MIE and OE groups, and the comparative analysis of regional lymph node showed that there was no significant difference except 2L group (11.1% [5/45] vs . 38.1% [8/21], P = 0.025). The LNM degree of OE group was significantly higher than that of MIE group (27.2% [47/173] vs . 7.6% [32/419], P < 0.001), and the comparative analysis of regional LNM degree showed that there was no significant difference except 2L (34.7% [17/49] vs . 7.7% [13/169], P < 0.001) and 4L (23.8% [5/21] vs . 3.9% [2/51], P = 0.031) subgroups. MIE may have an advantage in LND of upper mediastinum 2L and 4L groups, while it was similar to OE in other stations of LND.

Comparison of complications and long-term survival after minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

ObjectiveTo compare the complications and long-term survival of esophageal cancer patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) versus open esophagectomy (OE) using propensity score matching (PSM).MethodsEsophageal cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy at the Thoracic Surgery Department of the First Affiliated Hospital of Hebei North University from January 2010 to December 2018 were retrospectively enrolled. The incidence of postoperative complications and prognosis of the MIE (n = 132) and OE (n = 138) groups were compared. To reduce bias, 1:1 PSM was adopted for the analysis.ResultsThe median disease-free survival (DFS) of the MIE and OE groups were 24 months and 26 months, respectively, and neither group reached median survival. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of 3-year DFS and overall survival (OS). The stratification of the patients on the basis of the percentage of estimated forced expiratory volume in the first second (%FEV1) did not result in significant differences in the survival rates. A total of 42 patients (50%) in the MIE group and 55 patients (65.48%) in the OE group experienced complications, and the difference was statistically significant (OR=0.527, 95% CI: 0.283–0.981, P=0.042). The incidence of acute COPD exacerbation (OR=0.213, 95% OR, CI: 0.068–0.666, P=0.004) and pulmonary atelectasis requiring bronchoscopic aspiration (OR=0.232, 95% OR, CI: 0.082–0.659, P=0.004) were significantly higher in the OE versus the MIE group. In addition, the distribution of the various grades of complications also differed significantly between the two groups (P=0.016). While the incidence of minor complications (≤Grade II) was similar in both groups (P=0.503), that of severe complications (≥Grade III) was markedly higher in the OE group (P=0.002) and the Grade-IIIa complications were predominant (P=0.001). The severity of complications was correlated with the postoperative duration of hospital stay in both groups (r=0.187, P=0.015). No significant difference was observed in the incidence of minor complications (≤Grade II) between the two groups following stratification on the basis of %FEV1, whereas severe complications were more frequent in the OE group among patients with %FEV1 between 60% and 70% (P=0.001<0.05).ConclusionThere was no significant difference in the postoperative DFS and OS of esophageal cancer patients with COPD after undergoing MIE or OE. However, MIE significantly reduced the incidence of severe postoperative complications among patients with %FEV1 between 60% and 70%.

565. MOVING FROM OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY TO MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY: A PARADIGM SHIFT IN AN UPPER GASTROINTESTINAL CENTER

Abstract Esophagectomy is a complex procedure that is traditionally associated with high morbidities. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has the benefits of reduced post-op complications and improved quality of life in comparison to open esophagectomy (OE). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of MIE vs OE since the advocation of MIE as the standard approach in an upper gastrointestinal center. A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the institutional online databank. OE was the main approach for esophageal cancer between year 2015 to 2017, while MIE was the standard approach in 2020 to 2021. Patient’s demography, tumour’s characteristics, operative approach, perioperative outcomes such as operation time, blood loss, post-op length of hospital stay, number of lymph node yield, post-op morbidities and mortality were compared between the OE (Jan 2015 – Dec 2017) and the MIE (Jan 2020 – Dec 2021) group. 28 patients were included in this study, 15 in the OE group while 13 in the MIE group. Mean age was similar in both groups (60.4vs59.4). 46.7% were of squamous cell carcinoma in the OE group vs 76.9% of adenocarcinoma in the MIE group. Ivor-Lewis approach was more common in the OE group (53.3%vs38.5%). MIE was associated with shorter mean operative time (489.38minutes vs 526minutes), less blood loss (110ml vs 250ml), shorter length of stay post-op (10.38days vs 24.67days) and higher number of lymph node yield (44vs31.67). Post-op morbidity was lower in MIE (30.7%vs73.3%) with Clavien-dindo grade-III and above complication rate of 7.69% vs 26.67%. 90-day mortality was 0 in the MIE vs 1 in the OE group. MIE was associated with shorter operative time, higher number of lymph node yield, reduced post-op morbidity, mortality and shorter post-operative hospital stay in patients with esophageal cancer. The encouraging results marked the paradigm shift from OE to MIE in our center.

A retrospective study of preoperative malnutrition based on the Controlling Nutritional Status score as an associated marker for short-term outcomes after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Preoperative malnutrition is a significant risk factor for post-esophagectomy morbidity. The Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) is an index used to assess nutritional status, and it has been suggested to predict post-esophagectomy morbidity. However, the difference in the predictive value of CONUT in estimating morbidities between open esophagectomy (OE) and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has not yet been elucidated. This study included patients who underwent a three-incision esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between April 2005 and August 2021. The patients were further divided into two groups according to their preoperative CONUT scores: normal and light malnutrition and moderate and severe malnutrition. Short-term outcomes between these groups were retrospectively compared in the OE and MIE groups. A total of 674 patients who underwent OE (296) and MIE (378) were analyzed. Moreover, 32 patients of the OE group and 16 of the MIE group were classified as having moderate and severe malnutrition, respectively. Moderate and severe malnutrition was significantly associated with a low body mass index, poor performance status, poor American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, advanced cancer stage, and frequent preoperative treatment. These patients also experienced significantly more frequent morbidities of grade ≥ IIIb according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (CDc), respiratory, and cardiovascular morbidities after OE. Moreover, moderate and severe malnutrition in CONUT was an independent risk factor for morbidity of CDc ≥ IIIb (odds ratio [OR] vs. normal and light malnutrition = 3.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.225-9.332; p = 0.019), respiratory (OR = 3.00; 95% CI, 1.161-7.736; p = 0.023), and cardiovascular morbidities (OR = 3.66; 95% CI, 1.068-12.55; p = 0.039) after OE. Meanwhile, moderate and severe malnutrition in CONUT did not increase the incidence of postoperative morbidities after MIE. Preoperative malnutrition in CONUT reflects various disadvantageous clinical factors and could be a predictor of worse short-term outcomes after OE, but it has no value in MIE. The low invasiveness of MIE might reduce the effect of preoperative malnutrition on worse short-term outcomes.

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Is Associated with Superior Survival Compared to Open Surgery.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has not been associated with a long-term survival advantage compared to open esophagectomy (OE). We investigated survival differences between MIE, including laparoscopic and robotic, and OE. Patients undergoing esophagectomy from 2010 to 2014 with T1-4N0-3M0, adenocarcinoma or squamous cell histology, in middle or lower esophagus were queried from the National Cancer Database and stratified into groups based on their surgical procedure: robotic, laparoscopic, or OE. Propensity matching (1:1) was done between robotic and laparoscopic to produce an MIE group. The MIE group was matched to OE yielding a 1:1:2 matching of robotic:laparoscopic:OE. Postoperative outcomes and survival (Kaplan-Meier) were compared between groups. Prior to matching, 7,163 patients met inclusion criteria and a greater portion underwent OE (67.7%) than MIE (laparoscopic 24.9% and robotic 7.4%). Matching yielded similar groups (robotic = 527, laparoscopic = 527, and OE =1054). Compared to OE, MIE patients had a significantly greater number of nodes sampled and trended toward increased R0 resections (96.1% vs 94.3%, P = .053). OE was associated with a longer median postoperative stay (10 vs 9 days, P = .001). Mortality at 30 and 90 days was similar. However, postoperative survival for MIE was significantly greater than OE (P < .001). No survival difference existed between robotic and laparoscopic (P = .723). MIE is associated with increased number of nodes examined and a shorter postoperative length of stay. After propensity matching, patients undergoing MIE had better long but not short-term survival than OE. This benefit seems to be independent of the use of robotic technology.

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.

Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy with extended lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer compared with video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: A single-center retrospective study.

The safety and feasibility of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) remain unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of RAMIE with extended lymphadenectomy and conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in order to investigate the safety and feasibility of RAMIE. A retrospective analysis of 87 patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy at our institution between April 2018 and March 2020 was made, assigning 22 in the RAMIE group and 65 in the MIE group. Short-term clinical outcomes and clinical baseline data were compared. The baseline characteristics were comparable. No significant difference in median thoracic phase blood loss and median number of dissected mediastinal lymph nodes were observed. The median operative time of thoracic approach was significantly longer in the RAMIE group than the MIE group (305 minutes [221-397] vs 227 minutes [133-365], P < .0001). With respect to postoperative complications such as recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade II) (RAMIE 4.6% vs MIE 17%, P=.11) and postoperative pneumonia (Clavien-Dindo ≥ grade III) (RAMIE 9% vs MIE 23%, P=.13), no significant difference was observed. The patients in the RAMIE group had a better postoperative swallowing function (P=.023) and were able to start oral food intake significantly earlier (P=.007). The median hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RAMIE group than in the MIE (23 days vs 35 days, P=.009). RAMIE with extended lymphadenectomy was safe and feasible for esophageal cancer and resulted in improved postoperative swallowing function and shorter postoperative hospital stay.

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

Abstract 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 &amp; 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 &amp;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&amp;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.

Minimal invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant treatments

BackgroundAlthough previous studies have discussed whether the minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open surgery, the data concerning esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients underwent neoadjuvant treatment followed by radical resection is limited. The purpose of our study was to compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the two surgical approaches in treating ESCC patients.MethodsBetween January 2010 and December 2016, ESCC patients who had received neoadjuvant therapy and underwent Mckeown esophagectomy at our institute were eligible. The baseline characteristics, pathological data, short-and long-term outcomes of these patients were collected and compared based on the surgical approach.ResultsA total of 195 patients was included in the current study. Compared to patients underwent open surgery, patients underwent MIE had shorter operative time and less intraoperative bleeding (390 min vs 330 min, P = 0.001; 204 ml vs 167 ml, P = 0.021). In addition, the risk of anastomotic leakage was decreased in MIE group (20.0% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001), while the occurrence of other complications did not have statistical significance between two groups. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) was no difference in patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy between the two approaches. For the patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, OS was significantly better in the MIE group (log rank = 6.197; P = 0.013).ConclusionMinimally invasive Mckeown esophagectomy is safe and feasible for ESCC patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. MIE approach presented better perioperative results than open esophagectomy. The effect of surgical approaches on survival was depending on the scheme of neoadjuvant treatment.

Comparison of Up-Front Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy versus Open Esophagectomy on Quality of Life for Esophageal Squamous Cell Cancer.

This study investigates whether minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is a safe and effective way for patients with resectable esophageal cancer by comparing the short-term quality of life (QOL) after minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy (OE). A total number of 104 patients who underwent esophagectomy from January 2013 to March 2014 were enrolled in this study. These patients were divided into two groups (MIE and OE group). Three scoring scales of quality of life were used to evaluate QOL before the operation and at the first, third, sixth and twelfth months after MIE or OE, which consist of Karnofshy performance scale (KPS), the European Organization for Research and Treatment questionnaire QLQC-30 (EORTC QLQC-30) and esophageal cancer supplement scale (OES-18). The MIE group was higher than the OE group in one-year survival rate (92.54% vs. 72.00%). Significant differences between the two groups were observed in intraoperative bleeding volume (158.53 ± 91.07 mL vs. 228.97 ± 109.33 mL, p = 0.001), and the incidence of postoperative pneumonia (33.33% vs. 58.62%, p = 0.018). The KPS of MIE group was significantly higher than the OE group at the first (80 vs. 70, p = 0.004 < 0.05), third (90 vs. 80, p = 0.006 < 0.05), sixth (90 vs. 80, p = 0.007 < 0.05) and twelfth months (90 vs. 80, p = 0.004 < 0.05) after surgery. The QLQC-30 score of MIE group was better than OE group at first and twelfth months after the operation. The OES-18 score of MIE group was significantly better than OE group at first, sixth and twelfth months after surgery. The short-term quality of life in MIE group was better than OE group.

Perioperative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Open Esophagectomy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

To explore the perioperative outcomes, safety, and effectiveness of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) versus open esophagectomy (OE). Randomized controlled comparing MIE versus OE were searched from PubMed and other electronic databases between January 1991 and March 2019. Thirteen outcome variables were analyzed. Random effects model was used to calculate the effect size. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Four randomized controlled trials totaling 569 patients were analyzed. For MIE, there was a significantly reduction of 67% in the odds of pulmonary complications. For operating time, MIE was nonsignificantly 29 minutes longer. MIE was associated with nonsignificantly less blood loss of 443.98 mL. There was nonsignificant 60% reduction in the odds of total complications and 51% reduction in the odds of medical complications favoring MIE group. For delayed gastric emptying, there was a nonsignificant reduction of 75% in the odds ratio favoring the MIE group. For postoperative anastomotic leak, there was a nonsignificant increase of 48% in the odds ratio for MIE group. For gastric necrosis, chylothorax, reintervention and 30-day mortality, no difference was observed for both groups. There was a nonsignificant reduction in the length of hospital stay of 7.98 days and intensive care unit stay of 2.7 days favoring MIE. MIE seems to be superior to OE for only pulmonary complications. All the other perioperative variables were comparable however, the trend is favoring the MIE. Therefore, the routine use of MIE presently may only be justifiable in high volume esophagogastric units.