Sahil Gambhir1, Shaun Daly1, Shelley Maithel1, Luke R Putnam1, James Nguyen1, Brian R Smith1, Ninh T Nguyen2,3. 1. Department of Surgery, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA. ninhn@uci.edu. 3. Department of Surgery, University of California Irvine Medical Center, 333 City Blvd West, Suite 1600, Orange, CA, 92868, USA. ninhn@uci.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Initial adoption of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) began in the late 1990s but its surgical technique, perioperative management, and outcome continues to evolve. METHODS: The aim of this study was to examine the evolving changes in the technique, outcome, and new strategies in management of postoperative leaks after MIE was performed at a single institution over a two-decade period. A retrospective chart review of 75 MIE operations was performed between November 2011 and September 2018 and this was compared to the initial series of 104 MIE operations performed by the same group between 1998 and 2007. Operative technique, outcomes, and management strategies of leaks were compared. RESULTS: There were 65 males (86.7%) with an average age of 61 years. The laparoscopic/thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy became the preferred MIE approach (49% of cases in the initial vs. 95% in the current series). Compared to the initial case series, there was no significant difference in median length of stay (8 vs. 8 days), major complications (12.5% vs. 14.7%, p = 0.68), incidence of leak (9.6% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.82), anastomotic stricture (26% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.38), or in-hospital mortality (2.9% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.47). Management of esophageal leaks has changed from primarily thoracotomy ± diversion initially (50% of leak cases) to endoscopic stenting ± laparoscopy/thoracoscopy currently (87.5% of leak cases). CONCLUSION: In a single-institutional series of MIE over two decades, there was a shift toward a preference for the laparoscopic/thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis approach with similar outcomes. The management of postoperative leaks drastically changed with predilection toward minimally invasive option with endoscopic drainage and stenting.
BACKGROUND: Initial adoption of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) began in the late 1990s but its surgical technique, perioperative management, and outcome continues to evolve. METHODS: The aim of this study was to examine the evolving changes in the technique, outcome, and new strategies in management of postoperative leaks after MIE was performed at a single institution over a two-decade period. A retrospective chart review of 75 MIE operations was performed between November 2011 and September 2018 and this was compared to the initial series of 104 MIE operations performed by the same group between 1998 and 2007. Operative technique, outcomes, and management strategies of leaks were compared. RESULTS: There were 65 males (86.7%) with an average age of 61 years. The laparoscopic/thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy became the preferred MIE approach (49% of cases in the initial vs. 95% in the current series). Compared to the initial case series, there was no significant difference in median length of stay (8 vs. 8 days), major complications (12.5% vs. 14.7%, p = 0.68), incidence of leak (9.6% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.82), anastomotic stricture (26% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.38), or in-hospital mortality (2.9% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.47). Management of esophageal leaks has changed from primarily thoracotomy ± diversion initially (50% of leak cases) to endoscopic stenting ± laparoscopy/thoracoscopy currently (87.5% of leak cases). CONCLUSION: In a single-institutional series of MIE over two decades, there was a shift toward a preference for the laparoscopic/thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis approach with similar outcomes. The management of postoperative leaks drastically changed with predilection toward minimally invasive option with endoscopic drainage and stenting.
Authors: James D Luketich; Arjun Pennathur; Omar Awais; Ryan M Levy; Samuel Keeley; Manisha Shende; Neil A Christie; Benny Weksler; Rodney J Landreneau; Ghulam Abbas; Matthew J Schuchert; Katie S Nason Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Ninh T Nguyen; Marcelo W Hinojosa; Brian R Smith; Kenneth J Chang; James Gray; David Hoyt Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Ninh T Nguyen; Patrick Donohue Rudersdorf; Brian R Smith; Kevin Reavis; Xuan-Mai T Nguyen; Michael J Stamos Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2011-09-09 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: James D Luketich; Arjun Pennathur; Yoko Franchetti; Paul J Catalano; Scott Swanson; David J Sugarbaker; Alberto De Hoyos; Michael A Maddaus; Ninh T Nguyen; Al B Benson; Hiran C Fernando Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: James D Luketich; Miguel Alvelo-Rivera; Percival O Buenaventura; Neil A Christie; James S McCaughan; Virginia R Litle; Philip R Schauer; John M Close; Hiran C Fernando Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: K W Maas; S S A Y Biere; J J G Scheepers; S S Gisbertz; V Turrado Turrado Rodriguez; D L van der Peet; M A Cuesta Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 4.584