BACKGROUND: Open and laparoscopic trans-hiatal esophagectomy has been successfully performed in the treatment of megaesophagus. However, there are no randomized studies to differentiate them in their results. AIM: To compare the results of minimally invasive laparoscopic esophagectomy (EMIL) vs. open trans-hiatal esophagectomy (ETHA) in advanced megaesophagus. METHOD: A total of 30 patients were randomized, 15 of them in each group - EMIL and ETHA. The studied variables were dysphagia score before and after the operation at 24-months follow-up; pain score in the immediate postoperative period and at hospital discharge; complications of the procedure, comparing each group. Were also studied: surgical time in minutes, transfusion of blood products, length of hospital stay, mortality and follow-up time. RESULTS: ETHA group comprised eight men and seven women; in the EMIL group, four women and 11 men. The median age in the ETHA group was 47.2 (29-68) years, and in the EMIL group of 44.13 (20-67) years. Mean follow-up time was 33 months, with one death in each group, both by fatal aspiration. There was no statistically significant difference between the EMIL vs. ETHA scores for dysphagia, pain and in-hospital complications. The same was true for surgical time, transfusion of blood products and hospital stay. CONCLUSION: There was no difference between EMIL and ETHA in all the studied variables, thus allowing them to be considered equivalent.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Open and laparoscopic trans-hiatal esophagectomy has been successfully performed in the treatment of megaesophagus. However, there are no randomized studies to differentiate them in their results. AIM: To compare the results of minimally invasive laparoscopic esophagectomy (EMIL) vs. open trans-hiatal esophagectomy (ETHA) in advanced megaesophagus. METHOD: A total of 30 patients were randomized, 15 of them in each group - EMIL and ETHA. The studied variables were dysphagia score before and after the operation at 24-months follow-up; pain score in the immediate postoperative period and at hospital discharge; complications of the procedure, comparing each group. Were also studied: surgical time in minutes, transfusion of blood products, length of hospital stay, mortality and follow-up time. RESULTS:ETHA group comprised eight men and seven women; in the EMIL group, four women and 11 men. The median age in the ETHA group was 47.2 (29-68) years, and in the EMIL group of 44.13 (20-67) years. Mean follow-up time was 33 months, with one death in each group, both by fatal aspiration. There was no statistically significant difference between the EMIL vs. ETHA scores for dysphagia, pain and in-hospital complications. The same was true for surgical time, transfusion of blood products and hospital stay. CONCLUSION: There was no difference between EMIL and ETHA in all the studied variables, thus allowing them to be considered equivalent.
Surgical treatment of advanced megaesophagus is controversial
. There is no consensus among surgeons on which technique should be indicated
in the treatment of their advanced forms. The ones that offer better results in the
resolution of dysphagia present higher morbidity and mortality, and those with
lower, increase the rate of relapse of the clinical aspects, with possible new
interventions
,
,
,
. Open-access trans-hiatal esophagectomy, as an option for the treatment of
advanced megaesophagus, has been consolidated
,
,
. In the 1990s, surgical diseases were impacted by videolaparoscopic access,
reducing morbidity and favoring early recovery. De Paula et al.
were the first to apply video access in the advanced chagasic megaesophagus,
followed by others
,
,
,
,
demonstrating that it is feasible. There is no consensus as to whether the
efficacy of the videolaparoscopic approach in the treatment of megaesophagus exceeds
open access.Thus, the objective of this study was to compare the results of minimally invasive
laparoscopic esophagectomy (EMIL) vs. open trans-hiatal esophagectomy (ETHA) in
advanced megaesophagus.
METHOD
The project was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University
of Alagoas, protocol nº 012257 / 2006-59.Forty-four patients with advanced megaesophagus (groups 3 and 4 of the classification
of Rezende
) were eligible from 2007 to 2013. Thirteen were excluded because they did
not adhere to the proposed treatment. Thirty were randomized, randomly allocated by
lot 15 in group EMIL and another 15 in group ETHA. Inclusion criteria were adults,
18-70 years old, with advanced megaesophagus; were excluded those with recurrent
megaesophagus, patients with previous laparotomy in the upper abdomen, the ones with
difficult to control comorbidities, and patients with associated portal
hypertension.All had preoperative surgical risk assessment according to ASA (American Society of
Anesthesiologists), using the following measurements: blood count, coagulogram,
nutritional index, echocardiogram, total abdominal ultrasonography and viral markers
for hepatitis B and C. Were searched for Chagas’ disease through at least two
methods of measurement.The operation was trans-hiatal esophagectomy with truncal vagotomy without
pyloroplasty and with manual endolateral esophagogastric anastomosis.The technique was the same in both groups
,
.The variables studied were: 1) clinical dysphagia by score dysphagia according to the
classification of Brandt
- referring to the frequency, severity and type of dysphagia before and
after the operation in the 1st and 24th month: mild (0-5),
moderate (6-10) and intense (11-16); 2) pain score by verbal scale in the immediate
postoperative period and at hospital discharge; 3) incidence of complications of the
procedure in the cervical, thoracic and abdominal areas; 4) surgical time in
minutes, blood transfusion, length of hospital stay, mortality and follow-up
time.
Statistical analysis
The statistical tests applied were chi-square and non-parametric Friedman, with
significance of p<0.05.
RESULTS
The mean age was 47.2 years (29-68) in group A. Regarding group B, it was 44.13 years
(20-67). The gender in group A was seven men and eight women and group B 11 men and
four women. The mean follow-up time was 33 months (1-100).The serological evaluation for Chagas’ disease was positive in 20 patients (66.6%),
and in the others it was not concluded in two measurements. All had epidemiological
disease history and previous contact with triatomine (Triatoma
infestans).The comparison of the techniques in the dysphagia score shows that the severity of
the dysphagia before the operation was classified as a severe score in any of the
groups (86.6-93.3%), and in the postoperative period, in one and 24 months
follow-up, 13 (86.6%) of the EMIL group were in light score (0-5) points,
practically without dysphagia. In the ETHA group, 14 patients (93.3) were in this
same pattern. In other words, there was no statistical difference in the dysphagia
between the groups, according to Friedmann’s non-parametric test, p> 0.05, Table 1. The same result occurred when
comparing the accesses, laparoscopic vs. open by the same test, p> 0.05.
TABLE 1
Comparison of the dysphagia score before and after operation between
the laparoscopic (EMIL) and open trans-hiatal access (ETHA) groups, in
the 30rd-day and 24-month follow-up
Dysphagia score
Preoperative
Postoperative
(30 days)
EMIL ETHA n=15 n=15
EMIL ETHA n=15 n=15
Mild (0-5)
0 0
13 (86.6%) 14 (93.3%)
Moderate (6-10)
2 (13.4%) 1 (6.7%)
2 (13.4%) 1 (6.7%)
Severe (11-16)
13 (86.6%) 14 (93.3%)
0 0
(24 months)
Mild (0-5)
0 0
15 (100.0%) 15 (100.0%)
Moderate (6-10)
2 (13.4%) 1 (6.7%)
0 0
Severe (11-16)
13 (86.6%) 14(93.3%)
0 0
Friedman, p>0,05 (NS)
Friedman, p>0,05 (NS)Pain score comparison in both techniques showed that in the immediate postoperative
period the intensity of pain was similar in both groups, with pain absent in 26% of
the patients; mild (66%) and intense (6%) in the EMIL group. In the ETHA group it
was mild (60%) and moderate (6%). No patient had unbearable pain. At hospital
discharge 94% of the patients had no pain in the open group and 86% in the
laparoscopic group.Intra-hospital complications comparing the results in the two techniques in the
cervical region were similar, and there was no statistical difference in the
chi-square test, p> 0.05. There were no complications in 60% of patients in both
groups. When present, transient dysphonia predominated in the EMIL group and
cervical fistula in the ETHA group (Figure
1).
FIGURE 1
In-hospital complications of the two techniques in the cervical
region, p> 0.05
The in-hospital complications comparing the results in the thoracic region were also
without statistical difference, p>0.05. However, the absence of complications was
73.3% in the laparoscopic group, and pneumothorax was more frequent than in the open
group (Figure 2).
FIGURE 2
In-hospital complications of the two techniques in the thoracic
region, p> 0.05
Complications, comparing the results in the two techniques in the abdominal region,
also did not show statistical difference between one and the other access,
p>0.05. In the open group there was one case of persistent ileus and one case of
abdominal infection (abscess). No patient in the laparoscopic group had abdominal
complication (Figure 3).
FIGURE 3
In-hospital complications of the two techniques in abdominal region,
p>0.05
Regarding the length of hospital stay, it was lower in the ETHA group, mean of 14
days (7-17), but with no statistical difference. In group EMIL, the mean length was
17 days (5-28).Regarding surgical time, the lowest was in the ETHA group, 120 min and in the EMIL,
180 min. The mean was 170 min for open access and 227 for laparoscopic.No transfusion of blood products was required in any of the operated patients and
there was a mortality rate of 6.7% (one case for each access route), and the cause
of death was fatal aspiration in both.Among the concomitant diseases four in the EMIL group presented schistosomiasis
mansoni, chagasic cardiopathy, megacolon and gastroesophageal reflux disease, one
disease for each patient. At ETHA, two had chagasic cardiomyopathy and one renal
lithiasis. None of them had biliary lithiasis detected on total abdomen
ultrasound.
DISCUSSION
There is no consensus among surgeons
, which is the best technique for the treatment of advanced forms of
megaesophagus
,
,
,
,
,
,
. Resection and cardioplasties, in their various techniques, are discussed
among themselves. There are no randomized studies demonstrating superiority over one
another
. The introduction of laparoscopic access into the surgical arsenal in the
1990s was so shocking that no one was able to serenely assess how far their limits
and benefits would go
. Since then, the series in operations of high complexity began to be
reported. De Paula et al.
, were the first to describe laparoscopic trans-hiatal esophagectomy.
However, the acceptance of this technique by surgeons has been limited by the
difficulty of visualizing the posterior mediastinum, laterally restricted work
place, prolonged operative time and difficult learning curve
. Thus, to date, there are reported series
,
,
,
,
, but not randomized studies that clarify whether there is superiority of
laparoscopic trans-hiatal access over open trans-hiatal. To our knowledge, this is
the first prospective randomized trial to perform this assessment. Some series have
suggested that minimally invasive laparoscopic esophagectomy is superior when
compared to open access for trans-hiatal esophagectomy. The comparative series of
case-control studies by Perry et al.
concluded that mortality, blood loss, hospital stay, operative time and
morbidity were no worse than in open access. In this study, mortality and morbidity
did not find statistically significant results that indicated an advantage over one
another method. There was one death in each group (6.7%), not linked to the
operative method, but due to fatal aspiration due to gastric stasis, consequent to
not performing pyloroplasty. Urschel et al.
in meta-analysis had already warned that performing it or not, did not
interfere in gastric stasis after truncal vagotomy in the transposed stomach.
However, they pointed out that in the study performed there were two cases of
aspiration and both were fatal. The same occurred in this study and the service
adopted pyloroplasty in every transposed stomach
. Stasis appears even in those submitted to pyloroplasty, but afterwards it
disappears
,
. The transposed stomach empties within the normal range, especially in
orthostatic position. It acquires tubular form when it has normal emptying, and
sacular proportional to the degree of stasis. Some degree of gastric atony may be
found in the early postoperative period, attributed to vagotomy and dysphagia of the
chagasic stomach, occasionally requiring the use of prokinetics, even though they
are not very effective. In anterior series
the tubular stomach was found in 32.1% (CI - 15.9-52.4%) and the saccular
form in 10.7% (CI - 2.3-28.2%), therefore with stasis. In this randomized series it
lasted for some patients from six months to two years to improve the clinical
findings. In one case there was dilatation of the pylorus. In another after eight
years of laparoscopic access, gastric stasis was still so important that it required
hospitalization, nasogastric intubation, enteral nutritional and clinical handling.
It should be noted that at the time it was believed that truncal vagotomy did not
involve obligatory pyloroplasty, a topic still controversial and current, where the
transposed stomach empties itself into normal patterns, especially if the patient is
in orthostasis.Another variable studied in this study was the pain score, whose results were better
for the laparoscopic group, but with no statistical difference. Regarding efficacy
in the resolution of dysphagia, analyzed according to criteria well determined by
Brandt
, there was no superiority between laparoscopic or open methods. The same
occurred in the morbidity, regarding the complications by regions and it was
observed that in laparoscopy there are more sequelae of pneumothorax, but without
statistical difference. Perhaps it could be explained by the pressure of the gas,
which, while facilitating dissection, invades the structures more frequently.In the comparison of the efficacy of EMIL vs. ETHA, there was no statistical
advantage of one access over the other. However, for a definitive answer it is
necessary to have multicentric studies with broader casuistics
,
, a limiting factor in this study. There is also epidemiological restriction
to obtain expressive casuistics, due to the number of cases of achalasia/year in
advanced degree being small, either by chagasic or idiopathic etiology.Technically it is worth mentioning that in the case of videolaparoscopy cervical
access can only be performed when the operation has advanced greatly in the
mediastinum. Otherwise, the gas dissipates and makes it very difficult to follow the
surgical procedure. Sometimes small emphysema occurs in the cervical region and the
veins of the region become prominent.No patient received transfusion of blood products; however, some were submitted to
enteral or parenteral nutritional recovery to reach the preoperative minimum index
of 18-20 BMI. As for the surgical time, the open operation was faster and the
shortest time was 120 min (mean 170); in the laparoscopy it was 180 min (mean of
227). There was one death in each group related to gastric stasis due to the lack of
pyloroplasty
,
. The fistula index (26%) found no difference between EMIL and ETHA and was
similar to the literature (10-26%)
,
; was lower in laparoscopy (20%), but without statistical significance. With
mechanical laterolateral esophagogastric anastomosis
the rate of fistulas in the surgical service of the authors was reduced to
10-12%
; the same has been demonstrated by other authors
,
,
.
CONCLUSION
There was no difference between laparoscopic minimally invasive trans-hiatal
esophagectomy (EMIL) and open trans-hiatal esophagectomy (ETHA) in all studied
variables, thus allowing to be considered equivalent.
Authors: Ewen A Griffiths; Peter G Devitt; Glyn G Jamieson; Jennifer C Myers; Sarah K Thompson Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: F A M Herbella; J L B Aquino; S Stefani-Nakano; E L A Artifon; P Sakai; E Crema; N A Andreollo; L R Lopes; C de Castro Pochini; P R Corsi; D Gagliardi; J C Del Grande Journal: Dis Esophagus Date: 2008-04-22 Impact factor: 3.429
Authors: José Luis Braga de Aquino; Vania Aparecida Leandro-Merhi; José Alexandre Mendonça; Elisa Donalisio Teixeira Mendes; Conceição de Maria Aquino Vieira Clairet; Leonardo Oliveira Reis Journal: Arq Bras Cir Dig Date: 2019-12-20
Authors: Flávio Roberto Takeda; Francisco Tustumi; Bruna de Camargo Nigro; Rubens Antonio Aissar Sallum; Ulysses Ribeiro-Junior; Ivan Cecconello Journal: Arq Bras Cir Dig Date: 2019-12-20