Kenneth L Meredith1, Taylor Maramara2, Paige Blinn2, Daniel Lee2, Jamie Huston2, Ravi Shridhar3. 1. Gastrointestinal Oncology, Florida State University College Of Medicine/Sarasota Memorial Health Care System, 1950 Arlington Street, Suite 101, Sarasota, FL, 34239, USA. kensurg@hotmail.com. 2. Gastrointestinal Oncology, Florida State University College Of Medicine/Sarasota Memorial Health Care System, 1950 Arlington Street, Suite 101, Sarasota, FL, 34239, USA. 3. Radiation Oncology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Surgical resection is vital in the curative management of patients with esophageal cancer. However, a myriad of surgical procedures exists based on surgeon preference and training. We report on the perioperative outcomes based on esophagectomy surgical technique. METHODS: A prospectively managed esophagectomy database was queried for patients undergoing esophagectomy from 1996 and 2016. Basic demographics, tumor characteristics, operative details, and post-operative outcomes were recorded and analyzed by comparison of transhiatal vs Ivor-lewis and minimally invasive (MIE) vs open procedures. RESULTS: We identified 856 patients who underwent esophagectomy. Neoadjuvant therapy was administered in 543 patients (63.4%). There were 504 (58.8%) open esophagectomies and 302 (35.2%) MIE. There were 13 (1.5%) mortalities and this did not differ among techniques (p = 0.6). While there was no difference in overall complications between MIE and open, complications occurred less frequently in patients undergoing RAIL and MIE IVL compared to other techniques (p = 0.003). Pulmonary complications also occurred less frequently in RAIL and MIE IVL (p < 0.001). Anastomotic leaks were less common in patients who underwent IVL compared to trans-hiatal approaches (p = 0.03). MIE patients were more likely to receive neoadjuvant therapy (p = 0.001), have lower blood loss (p < 0.001), have longer operations (p < 0.001), and higher lymph node harvests (p < 0.001) compared to open patients. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive and robotic Ivor Lewis techniques demonstrated substantial benefits in post-operative complications. Oncologic outcomes similarly favor MIE IVL and RAIL.
INTRODUCTION: Surgical resection is vital in the curative management of patients with esophageal cancer. However, a myriad of surgical procedures exists based on surgeon preference and training. We report on the perioperative outcomes based on esophagectomy surgical technique. METHODS: A prospectively managed esophagectomy database was queried for patients undergoing esophagectomy from 1996 and 2016. Basic demographics, tumor characteristics, operative details, and post-operative outcomes were recorded and analyzed by comparison of transhiatal vs Ivor-lewis and minimally invasive (MIE) vs open procedures. RESULTS: We identified 856 patients who underwent esophagectomy. Neoadjuvant therapy was administered in 543 patients (63.4%). There were 504 (58.8%) open esophagectomies and 302 (35.2%) MIE. There were 13 (1.5%) mortalities and this did not differ among techniques (p = 0.6). While there was no difference in overall complications between MIE and open, complications occurred less frequently in patients undergoing RAIL and MIE IVL compared to other techniques (p = 0.003). Pulmonary complications also occurred less frequently in RAIL and MIE IVL (p < 0.001). Anastomotic leaks were less common in patients who underwent IVL compared to trans-hiatal approaches (p = 0.03). MIEpatients were more likely to receive neoadjuvant therapy (p = 0.001), have lower blood loss (p < 0.001), have longer operations (p < 0.001), and higher lymph node harvests (p < 0.001) compared to open patients. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive and robotic Ivor Lewis techniques demonstrated substantial benefits in post-operative complications. Oncologic outcomes similarly favor MIE IVL and RAIL.
Authors: Stepan M Esagian; Ioannis A Ziogas; Konstantinos Skarentzos; Ioannis Katsaros; Georgios Tsoulfas; Daniela Molena; Michalis V Karamouzis; Ioannis Rouvelas; Magnus Nilsson; Dimitrios Schizas Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Henna Saviaro; Jukka Rintala; Joonas H Kauppila; Fredrik Yannopoulos; Sanna Meriläinen; Vesa Koivukangas; Heikki Huhta; Olli Helminen; Juha Saarnio Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2021-08 Impact factor: 3.005
Authors: Pieter Christiaan van der Sluis; Evangelos Tagkalos; Edin Hadzijusufovic; Benjamin Babic; Eren Uzun; Richard van Hillegersberg; Hauke Lang; Peter Philipp Grimminger Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: M M K Veenstra; B M Smithers; E Visser; D Edholm; S Brosda; J M Thomas; D C Gotley; I G Thomson; B P L Wijnhoven; A P Barbour Journal: BJS Open Date: 2021-01-08
Authors: Michael A Mederos; Michael J de Virgilio; Rivfka Shenoy; Linda Ye; Paul A Toste; Selene S Mak; Marika S Booth; Meron M Begashaw; Mark Wilson; William Gunnar; Paul G Shekelle; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons; Mark D Girgis Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-11-01
Authors: Fiorenzo V Angehrn; Kerstin J Neuschütz; Lana Fourie; Alexander Wilhelm; Silvio Däster; Christoph Ackermann; Markus von Flüe; Daniel C Steinemann; Martin Bolli Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 2.895