Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Groups Research Articles

622. COMPARISON OF ROBOT-ASSISTED MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY WITH CONVENTIONAL MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR ESOPHAGEAL CANCER: A MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COHORT STUDY

Abstract Background The Japanese public insurance system approved robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal cancer in 2018. Since then, an increasing number of RAMIE has been performed every year. However, it is unclear whether RAMIE is more beneficial than conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes. Methods A total of 396 patients (RAMIE, 145; MIE, 251) with resectable esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy between 2016 and 2019 at 6 institutions were included. A propensity score matching analysis was performed to compare the short-term outcome. Two-stage esophagectomy, salvage surgery, and palliative resection were excluded. Individual propensity scores were calculated based on the following 15 variables: age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS), hemodialysis, oral steroid use, obstructive pulmonary disease, histology, tumor location, clinical T, N, M classification, preoperative therapy, field of lymphadenectomy, and organ used for reconstruction. Results After matching 272 patients were analyzed. RAMIE took the significantly longer operating time (629min; 570min, p=0.0005), but the amount of blood loss (90g; 84g), number of harvested mediastinal nodes (24; 25), and in-hospital mortality (1.5%; 0.7%) were comparable. RAMIE group showed a trend of less severe post-operative morbidity (Clavien–Dindo grade III or higher) (18%; 27%) and significant reduction of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (23%; 35%, p=0.046). The 5-year overall and relapse-free survival in the RAMIE and MIE groups were 65%; 61% [hazard ratio (HR), 0.77; 95% CI: 0.51, 1.17], and 61%; 51% (HR, 0.73; 95% CI: 0.51, 1.06), respectively. Conclusion RAMIE was safely performed even during the early period of its application. Despite the longer operating time, RAMIE would be a promising alternative to MIE, with a better trend of short- and long-term outcomes, including a significantly lower incidence of postoperative recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy.

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.

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.

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.

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%.

385. OUTCOME FOLLOWING MINIMAL INVASIVE VERSUS OPEN ESOPHAGECTOMY FOR ESOPHAGEAL CARCINOMA PATIENTS WITH LIVER CIRRHOSIS: A PROPENSITY SCORE-MATCHED ANALYSIS

Abstract Although minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has advanced into a safe and effective alternative to open esophagectomy (OE), its utility in cirrhotic esophageal cancer (EC) patients remained unknown. This study analyzed the perioperative outcomes of MIE for EC with LC compared with open esophagectomy (OE). We retrospectively reviewed the clinical charts of patients treated with esophagectomy for EC who had a concomitant diagnosis of LC. Of the 74 patients identified from our records, 43 underwent MIE and 31 OE. The two treatment groups underwent propensity scores (PS) matching using a logistic model that included the following covariates: type of preoperative therapy, Charlson comorbidity index, Child-Pugh class, and elective versus emergency surgery. Following PS matching, the MIE and OE groups consisted of 40 and 20 patients, respectively. Patients treated with MIE less frequently showed severe pneumonia (7.5% versus 30%, respectively, p = 0.049) and had a shorter length of stay (median: 16 versus 22 days, respectively, p = 0.009), albeit at the expense of a longer operating time (median: 465.5 versus 403 min, respectively, p = 0.015). Compared with OE, MIE was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality (25% versus 2.5%, respectively, p = 0.013). Moreover, MIE did not compromise the quality of resected specimens with similar R0 resection rate. EC patients with LC showed more favorable mortality figures and lower rates of severe pneumonia after MIE compared with those who underwent OE. MIE may serve as a safe and feasible alternative for selected EC patients with LC.

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.

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.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy may contribute to low incidence of postoperative surgical site infection in patients with poor glycemic control.

High preoperative hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels have been suggested to increase complications after esophagectomy. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is less invasive than open esophagectomy (OE) and may reduce postoperative complications. However, it has not been established whether MIE contributes to low morbidity in patients with high preoperative HbA1c levels. Thus, the current study aimed to elucidate the effect of preoperative HbA1c levels on the incidence of complications each after OE and MIE. A total of 280 patients who underwent OE and 304 patients who underwent MIE for esophageal cancer between April 2005 and April 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The OE and MIE groups were further divided into two groups according to their preoperative HbA1c levels (< 6.9%, ≥ 6.9%). Patients with high HbA1c levels had a significantly higher incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) after OE (P = 0.0048). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that a high HbA1c level was an independent risk factor for frequent SSIs after OE (hazard ratio 2.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.101- 5.739; P = 0.029). On the contrary, a high HbA1c level did not affect the incidence of SSI after MIE (P = 1.00). A high HbA1c level was not associated with the incidence of morbidities other than SSI after OE and MIE. A high preoperative HbA1c level significantly increased SSI risk after OE but not after MIE. It was suggested that lower invasiveness of MIE could contribute to a low incidence of SSI, even in patients with poor preoperative glycemic control.

PS01.159: THE IMPROVED POSTOPERATIVE RECOVERY OUTCOMES FROM MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY

Abstract Background The minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been developed in the past three decades. In our institution, the MIE was first introduced in 2012, and the proportion of MIE was used for over 70% in 2016–2017. This study aimed to compare the postoperative recovery outcomes between MIE and open esophagectomy in different period. Methods A total of 725 patients were enrolled in this study including 248 patients who underwent open esophagectomy within 2012–2013 and 477 patients who underwent MIE within 2016–2017. All patients received McKeown esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy. And the perioperative complications were recorded according to the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) complication definitions. Results There was no statistically difference between OPEN and MIE groups with regard to preoperative characters except for age (60.8 ± 7.2 vs. 62.7 ± 7.7, P &lt; 0.001) and body mass index (22.4 ± 3.0 vs. 23.1 ± 3.0, P = 0.002). One (0.2%) patient in the MIE group died within 90 days from anastomotic leakage, compared to 6 (2.4%) patients in the OPEN group (P = 0.004). The length of hospital stay was shorter in the MIE group (11 range 6–131 days, vs. 15 range 9–164 days, P &lt; 0.001). The MIE group was in favor of lower complications (32.3% vs. 46.4%, P &lt; 0.001). Pneumonia was the most common complications in both groups (12.6% in MIE vs. 27.4% in OPEN, P &lt; 0.001). 15 (3.1%) patients in the MIE group experienced atrial arrhythmias compared with 30 (12.1%) in the OPEN group (P &lt; 0.001). Lower anastomotic leakage was noted in the MIE group (11.5% vs. 25.4%, P &lt; 0.001), as well as the wound infection (0.2% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.001), than in the OPEN group. The recurrent nerve injury was higher in the MIE group (11.7% vs. 6.5%, P = 0.024) but with more lymph nodes dissection along the recurrent laryngeal nerve (3.8 ± 2.8 vs. 1.4 ± 2.0, P &lt; 0.001). Conclusion The MIE was associated with better postoperative recovery outcomes and lower mortality. MIE technique should be considered as the mainstay surgical treatment for esophageal cancer in the current and future period. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Comparison of the short-term clinical outcome between open and minimally invasive esophagectomy by comprehensive complication index.

Esophagectomies are associated with high mortality and various complications. Previous studies reported on the short-term outcomes were heterogeneous and inconsistent in comparing minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with traditional open esophagectomy (OE). The objective of this study is to compare the short-term outcomes between MIE and OE calculated using Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) which incorporates all complication severities. We did expertise-based randomized controlled trial from September 2014 to October 2015. A total of 144 patients with resectable cancer were randomly selected to be treated by OE or MIE. The CCI was calculated using the Clavien-Dindo classification grade of all postoperative complications collected. Demographic characteristics, preoperative clinical assessment, postoperative complications, and CCI of patients were compared between both groups. Among the 144 patients included in this study, 97 underwent OE and 47 underwent MIE. Demographics, preoperative clinical assessment, and inpatient mortality in both cohorts were almost identical. Eighty-four patients (86.6%) of OE group and 26 patients (55.3%) of MIE group suffered from complications. A significant difference was observed in blood transfusion (P = 0.04), moderate and severe pain (P < 0.01), and diarrhea (P = 0.03) between two groups. There was an obvious statistical significance of CCI between OE and MIE groups (P = 0.036). The CCI is a promising scoring system that could be used to assess the severity of complications after esophagectomy. MIE could improve the short-term outcomes by reducing some mild and moderate complications.

Comparison the Outcomes of Open Thoracotomy and Minimally Invasive Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy in Esophageal Cancer

Introduction: Surgery is the first therapeutic option for esophageal cancer. There is controversy over the selection of the best surgical approach. Regarding this, the present study aimed to compare the minimally invasive and open esophagectomy in terms of their short-term outcomes and preoperative complications. Materials & Methods: This randomized clinical trial was conducted on 61 patients in Ghaem Hospital, Mashhad, Iran, within 2011-2013. The patients were assigned into two groups based on the type of therapeutic approach they received. The minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) groups consisted of 31 and 30 patients, respectively. For the purpose of the study, we collected such data as age, gender, site of lesion, bleeding, duration of surgery, rate of switch to open approach, post-operative morbidity, duration of hospital stay, and mortality rate. Results: According to the results of the study, 60.7% of the participants were male. The mean age of the patients was 62.39±11.91 years. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the site of lesion (P=0.014) and stage of tumor (P=0.108). No significant difference was observed between the MIE and OE groups in terms of the blood transfusion (P=0.981). Considering the complications, there was one case of fistula in the MIE group; furthermore, one and two cases of wound infection and pleural effusions were observed in the OE group, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the post-operative complications, namely fistula, pleural effusions, and wound infection (P=0.492, P=0.238, and P=0.492, respectively). The MIE group had longer operation time (P≤0.001). There was one patient in the MIE group converted to open approach. The duration of hospitalization was significantly longer in the OE group, and there was no mortality. Conclusion: As the findings of the present study demonstrated, the MIE outcomes were comparable with those of the OE with improved short-term outcomes.

Short and long term outcomes with robotic assisted esophagectomy.

125 Background: Surgical resection remains piviotal in the management of patients with esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy(MIE) has demonstrated superior operative outcomes compared to the open approaches. Robotic assistance has potential to further improve outcomes, however the long-term follow with this technique is lacking. Methods: Utilizing the National Cancer Database we identified patients who underwent esophagectomy and stratified by approach: open (OE), laparoscopic (LE) or robotic (RE). Baseline comparisons were made for continuous variables using both the Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal Wallis as appropriate. Pearson’s Chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method comparing survival curves with the log-rank test. All statistical tests were two-sided and α (type I) error &lt; 0.05 was considered significant. Results: We identified 18,869 patients who underwent esophagectomy with a mean age of 65 ± 10 years. There were 10,882 (57.7%) OE, 7,102 (37.6%) LE, and 885 (4.6%) RE. There was no difference in T stage or N stage among groups. Thirty and 90-day mortality was 3.2% and 6.9% and was lower in the MIE groups compared to open 6.2% vs 7.9% p &lt; 0.001. Median length of hospitalization in RE, LE and OE was comparable at 9, 10, and 10 days respectively, p = 0.06. Neoadjuvant therapy was administered in 9,118 (48.3%) patients and was more frequent in the RE 66.0% vs 57.5% OE vs LE 32% p &lt; 0.001. Oncologic quality as indicated by R0 resections and median lymph node harvested were improved in patients undergoing RE: 836 (94.9%) and 16, LE: 5,322 (86.7%) and 4, and OE: 9,631 (91.1%) and 12, p &lt; 0.001. The median and 5-year survival by approach: RE, LE and OE was 54.4 months and 47.7%, 55.6 months and 50.3%, and 47.4 months and 43.7%, p &lt; 0.001. MVA demonstrated that age, location, neoadjuvant therapy, T-stage, N-stage, hospital volume, MIE, and R0 resections were predictive of survival. Conclusions: Short and long-term outcomes with robotic assisted esophagectomy demonstrates low mortality with superior R0 resections and lymph node harvest. Overall survival is benefited in patients undergoing MIE.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Comparison of Early Surgical Outcomes From The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database

Open esophagectomy results in significant morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has become increasingly popular at specialized centers with the aim of improving perioperative outcomes. Numerous single-institution studies suggest MIE may offer lower short-term morbidity. The two approaches are compared using a large, multiinstitutional database. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) National Database (v2.081) was queried for all resections performed for esophageal cancer between 2008 and 2011 (n = 3,780). Minimally invasive approaches included both transhiatal (n = 214) and Ivor Lewis (n = 600), and these were compared directly with open transhiatal (n = 1,065) and Ivor Lewis (n = 1,291) procedures, respectively. Thirty-day outcomes were examined using nonparametric statistical testing. Both open and MIE groups were similar in terms of preoperative risk factors. Morbidity and all-cause mortality were equivalent at 62.2% and 3.8%. MIE was associated with longer median procedure times (443.0 versus 312.0 minutes; p < 0.001), but a shorter median length of hospital stay (9.0 versus 10.0 days; p < 0.001). Patients who underwent MIE had higher rates of reoperation (9.9% versus 4.4%; p < 0.001) and empyema (4.1% versus 1.8%; p < 0.001). Open technique led to an increased rate of wound infections (6.3% versus 2.3%; p < 0.001), postoperative transfusion (18.7% versus 14.1%; p = 0.002), and ileus (4.5% versus 2.2%; p = 0.002). Propensity score-matched analysis confirmed these findings. High- and low-volume centers had similar outcomes. Early results from the STS National Database indicate that MIE is safe, with comparable rates of morbidity and mortality as open technique. Longer procedure times and a higher rate of reoperation following MIE may reflect a learning curve.

Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BackgroundCompared with open esophagectomy (OE), minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) proves to have clear benefits in reducing the risk of pulmonary complications for patients with resectable esophageal cancer. The objectives of our study were to explore the superiority of MIE in reducing the occurrence of anastomotic leakages (ALs) when compared to OE.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the superiority of MIE on the occurrence of ALs over OE, by searching many sources (through December, 2014) such as Medline, Embase, Wiley Online Library, and Cochrane Library. Fixed-effects model was used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) to quantify associations between OE and MIE groups. Cochran’s Q and I2 statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity among studies.ResultsAmong a total of 43 studies involving 5537 patients included in the meta-analysis, 2527 (45.6 %) cases underwent MIE and 3010 (54.4 %) cases underwent OE. Compared to patients undergoing OE, patients undergoing MIE did not have statistical significance in reduced occurrence of ALs (OR = 0.97, 95 % CI = 0.80–1.17). Insignificant reduced occurrence of ALs was not associated with anastomotic location (OR = 0.90, 95 % CI = 0.71–1.13) or anastomotic procedure (OR = 1.02, 95 % CI = 0.79–1.30).ConclusionsMore proofs are needed to clarify the strengths or weaknesses of MIE in preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer. A largely randomized, controlled trial should be undertaken to resolve this contentious issue urgently.

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Provides Significant Survival Advantage Compared with Open or Hybrid Esophagectomy for Patients with Cancers of the Esophagus and Gastroesophageal Junction

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly being used to treat patients with cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. We previously reported that oncologic efficacy may be improved with MIE compared with open or hybrid esophagectomy (OHE). We compared survival of patients undergoing MIE and OHE. Our contemporary series of patients who underwent MIE (2008 to 2013) was compared with a cohort undergoing OHE (3-hole [n = 39], Ivor Lewis [n = 16], hybrid [n = 13], 2000 to 2013). Summary statistics were calculated by operation type; Kaplan-Meier methods were used to compare survival. Cox regression was used to assess the impact of operation type (MIE vs OHE) on mortality, adjusting for age, sex, total lymph nodes, lymph node ratio (LNR), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT), and stage. The MIE (n = 104) and OHE (n = 68) groups were similar with respect to age and sex. The MIE group tended to have higher BMI, earlier stage disease, and was less likely to receive CRT. The MIE group experienced lower operative mortality (3.9% vs 8.8%, p = 0.35) and significantly fewer major complications. Five-year survival between groups was significantly different (MIE, 64%, OHE, 35%, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that patients undergoing OHE had a significantly worse survival compared with MIE independent of age, LNR, CRT, and pathologic stage (hazard ratio 2.00, p = 0.019). This study supports MIE for EC as a superior procedure with respect to overall survival, perioperative mortality, and severity of postoperative complications. Several biases may have affected these results: earlier stage in the MIE group and disparity in timing of the procedures. These results will need to be confirmed in future prospective studies with longer follow-up.

Comparative study of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in a single cancer center

Background In order to minimize the injury reaction during the surgery and reduce the morbidity rate, hence reducing the mortality rate of esophagectomy, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was introduced. The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative outcomes in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma undergoing minimally invasive or open esophagectomy (OE). Methods The medical records of 176 consecutive patients, who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) between January 2009 and August 2013 in Cancer Institute &amp; Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, were retrospectively reviewed. In the same period, 142 patients who underwent OE, either Ivor Lewis or McKeown approach, were selected randomly as controls. The clinical variables of paired groups were compared, including age, sex, Charlson score, tumor location, duration of surgery, number of harvested lymph nodes, morbidity rate, the rate of leak, pulmonary morbidity rate, mortality rate, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Results The number of harvested lymph nodes was not significantly different between MIE group and OE group (median 20 vs. 16, P=0.740). However, patients who underwent MIE had longer operation time than the OE group (375 vs. 300 minutes, P &lt;0.001). Overall morbidity, pulmonary morbidity, the rate of leak, in-hospital death, and hospital LOS were not significantly different between MIE and OE groups. Morbidities including anastomotic leak and pulmonary morbidity, in-hospital death, hospital LOS, and hospital expenses were not significantly different between MIE and OE groups as well. Conclusions MIE and OE appear equivalent with regard to early oncological outcomes. There is a trend that hospital LOS and hospital expenses are reduced in the MIE group than the OE group.

Impact of comorbidity on outcomes and overall survival after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal cancer

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to examine the impact of the Charlson Comorbidity Index-Grade (CCI-G) on predicting outcomes and overall survival after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).MethodsOne hundred and forty-six patients who underwent esophagectomy between 1995 and 2011 for stage II and III cancer were selected and separated into open esophagectomy (Open) and MIE groups. Risk adjustment was performed using the CCI-G. The outcomes of interest were operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), lymph node harvest, length of hospital stay (LOS), major complications, 30-day mortality, and overall survival.ResultsSixty-four patients (44 %) underwent Open while 71 (49 %) had MIE. An additional (7 %) were converted and classified with MIE. There was no significant difference between MIE and Open in terms of operative time. MIE had less EBL (mean difference = 234 mL, p < 0.001), higher lymph node harvest (mean = 7.4 nodes, p < 0.001), and shorter LOS (median = 1.5 days, p = 0.02). Atrial arrhythmias were the most frequent complication, occurring in 33 % of patients in both the MIE and the Open group (p = 0.988). Thirty-day mortality was 2 % for MIE and 5 % for Open (p = 0.459). Five-year survival was 41 % for MIE and 33 % for Open (p = 0.513). Operative approach, age, gender, BMI, clinical stage, and neoadjuvant therapy did not have any significant effect on the outcomes or overall survival. CCI-G influenced outcomes with operative time, LOS, cardiovascular complication, and anastomotic leak rate, favoring CCI-G 0 compared to CCI-G 3. Overall survival was worse for CCI-G 1 in comparison with CCI-G 0 [hazard ratio (HR) 1.99, p = 0.027].ConclusionsMIE is a safe alternative to open esophagectomy for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer. The presence of comorbidities increased operative time, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications while worsening overall survival.