Project description:Introduction and importanceGastric conduit dehiscence after esophagectomy represents a severe complication associated with high mortality. Surgical management is achieved through thoracotomy, but often ends up in conduit sacrifice and diversion.Case presentationA 59-years-old man underwent minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma. After a worsening of the postoperative course and evidence at the CT scan and endoscopy of highly suspect gastric conduit failure, the patient underwent an exploratory thoracoscopy, which revealed a partial dehiscence of the gastric conduit treated with resection of the dehiscent gastric wall by a linear stapler on the guide of a 36-french orogastric tube. Patient had a regular postoperative course without any complications and was discharged on the 6th postoperative day.Clinical discussionThe management of conduit necrosis is extremely challenging. There are several interventional options and it is difficult to decide the most appropriate treatment for each individual patient. In our case we decided to perform a reintervention with a thoracoscopic approach, resecting the dehiscent area of the gastric conduit.ConclusionsMinimally invasive surgery is a valid option for the management of post-operative complications, including those in emergency setting. Re-suturing a partial dehiscence of gastric conduit may be feasible if tissue conditions allow.
Project description:Despite decreasing overall morbidity with minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), conduit functional outcomes related to delayed emptying remain challenging, especially in the immediate postoperative setting. Yet, this problem has not been described well in the literature. Utilizing a single institutional prospective database, 254 patients who underwent MIEs between 2012 and 2020 were identified. Gastric conduit dilation was defined as a conduit occupying >40% of the hemithorax on the postoperative chest X-ray. Sixty-seven patients (26.4%) demonstrated acute conduit dilation. There was a higher incidence of conduit dilation in the patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy compared to those with a neck anastomosis (67.2% vs. 47.1%; P = 0.03). Patients with dilated conduits required more esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD) (P < 0.001), conduit-related reoperations within 180 days (P < 0.001), and 90-day readmissions (P = 0.01). Furthermore, in 37 patients (25.5%) undergoing Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, we returned to the abdomen after intrathoracic anastomosis to reduce redundant conduit and pexy the conduit to the crura. While conduit dilation rates were similar, those who had intraabdominal gastropexy required EGD significantly less and trended toward a lower incidence of conduit-related reoperations (5.6% vs. 2.7%). Multivariable analysis also demonstrated that conduit dilation was an independent predictor for delayed gastric conduit emptying symptoms, EGD within 90 days, conduit-related reoperation within 180 days, and 30-day as well as 90-day readmission. Patients undergoing MIE with acute gastric conduit dilation require more endoscopic interventions and reoperations.
Project description:To update our experiences with minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 445 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy between January 2009 and July 2015 at the Cancer Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and used 103 patients who underwent open McKeown esophagectomy in the same period as controls. Among 375 patients who underwent total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy, 180 in the early period were chosen for the study of learning curve of total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy. These 180 minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomies performed by five surgeons were divided into three groups according to time sequence as group 1 (n = 60), group 2 (n = 60) and group 3 (n = 60).Patients who underwent total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy had significantly less intraoperative blood loss than patients who underwent hybrid minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy or open McKeown esophagectomy (100 mL vs 300 mL vs 200 mL, P = 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in operation time, number of harvested lymph nodes, or postoperative morbidity including incidence of pulmonary complication and anastomotic leak between total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy, hybrid minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy and open McKeown esophagectomy groups. There were no significant differences in 5-year survival between these three groups (60.5% vs 47.9% vs 35.6%, P = 0.735). Patients in group 1 had significantly longer duration of operation than those in groups 2 and 3. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, number of harvested lymph nodes, or postoperative morbidity including incidence of pulmonary complication and anastomotic leak between groups 1, 2 and 3.Total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy was associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss and comparable short term and long term survival compared with hybrid minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy or open Mckeown esophagectomy. At least 12 cases are needed to master total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy in a high volume center.
Project description:BackgroundIndocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence angiography (FA) was introduced to provide real-time intraoperative evaluation of the vascular perfusion of the gastric conduit during esophagectomy. However, its efficacy has not yet been proven. The aim of this study was to assess the usefulness of ICG-FA in the reduction of the rates of anastomotic leakage (AL) in McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE).MethodsFrom June 2017 to December 2019, patients aged between 18 and 80 years with esophageal carcinoma were enrolled in the study and each patient underwent McKeown MIE. Patients were divided into two groups, those with or without ICG-FA. The patient demographics and perioperative outcomes were comparable between the two groups. The primary outcome was the rate of AL.ResultsA total of 192 patients were included: 86 in the ICG-FA group and 106 in the non-ICG-FA group. Overall, 12 patients (6.3%) had AL; the rate of AL was 10.4% in the non-ICG-FA group, which was significantly higher than the 1.2% in the ICG-FA group.ConclusionsICG-FA has the potential to reduce the rate of AL in McKeown MIE.
Project description:ObjectiveOur objective was to evaluate the impact of early oral feeding (EOF) on postoperative cardiac, respiratory, and gastrointestinal (CRG) complications after McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.Summary background dataNil-by-mouth with enteral tube feeding is routinely practiced after esophagectomy.MethodsPatients were randomly allocated to receive oral feeding on the first postoperative day (EOF group) or late oral feeding (LOF group) 7 days after surgery. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of postoperative CRG complications, and the secondary outcomes included bowel function recovery and short-term quality of life (QOL).ResultsBetween February 2014 and October 2015, 280 patients were enrolled in this study. There were 140 patients in the EOF group and 140 patients in the LOF group. EOF was noninferior to LOF for CRG complications (30.0% in the EOF group vs. 32.9% in the LOF group; 95% confidence interval of the difference: -13.8% to 8.0%). Compared with the LOF group, the EOF group showed significantly shorter time to first flatus (median of 2 days vs. 3 days, P = 0.001) and bowel movement (median of 3 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). Two weeks after the operation, patients in the EOF group reported higher global QOL and function scores and lower symptom scores than patients in the LOF group.ConclusionsIn patients after McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy is noninferior to the standard of care with regard to postoperative CRG complications. In addition, patients in the EOF group had a quicker recovery of bowel function and improved short-term QOL.
Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is a complex and technically demanding procedure with a long learning curve, which is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. To master MIE, training in essential steps is crucial. Yet, no consensus on essential steps of MIE is available. The aim of this study was to achieve expert consensus on essential steps in Ivor Lewis and McKeown MIE through Delphi methodology.MethodsBased on expert opinion and peer-reviewed literature, essential steps were defined for Ivor Lewis (IL) and McKeown (McK) MIE. In a round table discussion, experts finalized the lists of steps and an online Delphi questionnaire was sent to an international expert panel (7 European countries) of minimally invasive upper GI surgeons. Based on replies and comments, steps were adjusted and rephrased and sent in iterative fashion until consensus was achieved.ResultsTwo Delphi rounds were conducted and response rates were 74% (23 out of 31 experts) for the first and 81% (27 out of 33 experts) for the second round. Consensus was achieved on 106 essential steps for both the IL and McK approach. Cronbach's alpha in the first round was 0.78 (IL) and 0.78 (McK) and in the second round 0.92 (IL) and 0.88 (McK).ConclusionsConsensus among European experts was achieved on essential surgical steps for both Ivor Lewis and McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy.
Project description:Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing HMIE with TMIE. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles comparing HMIE and TMIE were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. The primary outcome was pneumonia. Sensitivity analysis was performed by analyzing outcome for open chest hybrid MIE versus total TMIE and open abdomen MIE versus TMIE separately. Therefore, subgroup analysis was performed for laparoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, thoracoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, Ivor Lewis HMIE versus Ivor Lewis TMIE, and McKeown HMIE versus McKeown TMIE. There were no randomized controlled trials. Twenty-nine studies with a total of 3732 patients were included. Studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. In the main analysis, the pooled incidence of pneumonia was 19.0% after HMIE and 9.8% after TMIE which was not significantly different between the groups (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97-2.20). TMIE was associated with a lower incidence of wound infections (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.13-2.90) and less blood loss (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.34-1.22) but with longer operative time (SMD:-0.33, 95% CI: -0.59--0.08). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy-assisted HMIE was associated with a higher lymph node count than TMIE, and Ivor Lewis HMIE was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate than Ivor Lewis TMIE. In general, TMIE was associated with moderately lower morbidity compared to HMIE, but randomized controlled evidence is lacking. The higher leakage rate and lower lymph node count that was found after TMIE in sensitivity analysis indicate that TMIE can also have disadvantages. The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully by surgeons when moving from HMIE to TMIE.