Felix Berlth1, Patrick S Plum1, Seung-Hun Chon1, Christian A Gutschow2, Elfriede Bollschweiler1, Arnulf H Hölscher3. 1. Department of General, Visceral and Cancer Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 2. Department of General and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Center of Esophageal and Gastric Surgery, Agaplesion Markus Hospital, Wilhelm-Epstein-Straße 4, 60431, Frankfurt, Germany. Arnulf.Hoelscher@fdk.info.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of total minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) on early postoperative outcome and patient's survival is a matter of recent discussion. METHODS: We performed a 1:2 propensity score-matched comparison of 20 patients who underwent 3D-MIE and high intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy with 40 patients who underwent hybrid esophagectomy (HYBRID) with laparoscopic gastric mobilization and open transthoracic esophagectomy and the same anastomosis for esophageal adenocarcinoma in 2014 and 2015. Matching criteria were tumor localization, age, gender, and neoadjuvant treatment. RESULTS: Both groups did not differ regarding overall postoperative complications (MIE 55% vs. HYBRID 50%, p = 0.715) and anastomotic leakage (MIE 15% vs. HYBRID 5%, p = 0.186). A significant difference was seen regarding the rate of postoperative pneumonia (MIE 5% vs. HYBRID 27.5%; p = 0.040) and the postoperative ICU stay (MIE median 1 day vs. HYBRID median 2 days, p < 0.001). The R0-resection rate was 100% in both groups and median number of dissected lymph nodes was 32 for MIE and 35 for HYBRID (p = 0.236). Significant differences between both groups were noticed for postoperative number of patients with use of opiate demand medication and numeric rating scale for pain (NRSP maximum pain, median) both in favor of the MIE group (MIE 25%, NRSP 2 vs. HYBRID 60%, NRSP 4; p = 0.011, p < 0.001). Overall 2-year survival rate was 85% in both groups. CONCLUSION: Total minimally invasive esophagectomy is superior to hybrid esophagectomy in regard of postoperative pain and rate of pneumonia. No differences exist for postoperative surgical complications or short-term prognosis.
BACKGROUND: The impact of total minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) on early postoperative outcome and patient's survival is a matter of recent discussion. METHODS: We performed a 1:2 propensity score-matched comparison of 20 patients who underwent 3D-MIE and high intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy with 40 patients who underwent hybrid esophagectomy (HYBRID) with laparoscopic gastric mobilization and open transthoracic esophagectomy and the same anastomosis for esophageal adenocarcinoma in 2014 and 2015. Matching criteria were tumor localization, age, gender, and neoadjuvant treatment. RESULTS: Both groups did not differ regarding overall postoperative complications (MIE 55% vs. HYBRID 50%, p = 0.715) and anastomotic leakage (MIE 15% vs. HYBRID 5%, p = 0.186). A significant difference was seen regarding the rate of postoperative pneumonia (MIE 5% vs. HYBRID 27.5%; p = 0.040) and the postoperative ICU stay (MIE median 1 day vs. HYBRID median 2 days, p < 0.001). The R0-resection rate was 100% in both groups and median number of dissected lymph nodes was 32 for MIE and 35 for HYBRID (p = 0.236). Significant differences between both groups were noticed for postoperative number of patients with use of opiate demand medication and numeric rating scale for pain (NRSP maximum pain, median) both in favor of the MIE group (MIE 25%, NRSP 2 vs. HYBRID 60%, NRSP 4; p = 0.011, p < 0.001). Overall 2-year survival rate was 85% in both groups. CONCLUSION: Total minimally invasive esophagectomy is superior to hybrid esophagectomy in regard of postoperative pain and rate of pneumonia. No differences exist for postoperative surgical complications or short-term prognosis.
Authors: Donald E Low; Derek Alderson; Ivan Cecconello; Andrew C Chang; Gail E Darling; Xavier Benoit DʼJourno; S Michael Griffin; Arnulf H Hölscher; Wayne L Hofstetter; Blair A Jobe; Yuko Kitagawa; John C Kucharczuk; Simon Ying Kit Law; Toni E Lerut; Nick Maynard; Manuel Pera; Jeffrey H Peters; C S Pramesh; John V Reynolds; B Mark Smithers; J Jan B van Lanschot Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Martin K H Maus; Jessica Leers; Till Herbold; Marc Bludau; Seung-Hun Chon; Robert Kleinert; Daniel A Hescheler; Elfriede Bollschweiler; Arnulf H Hölscher; Hartmut Schäfer; Hakan Alakus Journal: World J Surg Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Hans Fuchs; Arnulf H Hölscher; Jessica Leers; Marc Bludau; Sebastian Brinkmann; Wolfgang Schröder; Hakan Alakus; Stefan Mönig; Christian A Gutschow Journal: Gastric Cancer Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 7.370
Authors: Neda Amini; Yuhree Kim; Omar Hyder; Gaya Spolverato; Christopher L Wu; Andrew J Page; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Luigi Bonavina; Federica Scolari; Alberto Aiolfi; Gianluca Bonitta; Andrea Sironi; Greta Saino; Emanuele Asti Journal: Surgery Date: 2015-09-28 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Surya S A Y Biere; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Kirsten W Maas; Luigi Bonavina; Camiel Rosman; Josep Roig Garcia; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Jean H G Klinkenbijl; Markus W Hollmann; Elly S M de Lange; H Jaap Bonjer; Donald L van der Peet; Miguel A Cuesta Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Maarten F J Seesing; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Lucas Goense; Richard van Hillegersberg; Hidde M Kroon; Sjoerd M Lagarde; Jelle P Ruurda; Annelijn E Slaman; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Bas P L Wijnhoven Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Martin Reichert; Maike Lang; Joern Pons-Kühnemann; Michael Sander; Winfried Padberg; Andreas Hecker Journal: Perioper Med (Lond) Date: 2022-09-14
Authors: Peter P Grimminger; Julia I Staubitz; Daniel Perez; Tarik Ghadban; Matthias Reeh; Pasquale Scognamiglio; Jakob R Izbicki; Matthias Biebl; Hans Fuchs; Christiane J Bruns; Hauke Lang; Thomas Becker; Jan-Hendrik Egberts Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 3.452