Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: a goal or a step?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Piessen G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7399417 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: a goal or a step?
Piessen Guillaume G Eveno Clarisse C Voron Thibault T
Journal of thoracic disease 20200701 7
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC7455468 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) has been proven to be superior when compared with open esophagectomy, with a significant reduction of postoperative morbidity. In HMIE, the laparotomy is replaced by a minimally invasive laparoscopic approach. The radical mediastinal resection plus reconstruction is performed by a thoracic approach through a muscle-sparing thoracotomy. In this instructional article, we describe the surgical technique of HMIE in detail in order to facilitate possible adoption of the procedure by other surgeons. In addition, we give the monocentric results of our own practice. Between 2013 and 2018, HMIE was performed in 157 patients. The morbidity and mortality data of the procedure is shown in a retrospective monocentric analysis. Overall, 54% of patients had at least one perioperative complication. Anastomotic leak was evident in 1.9%, and a single patient had focal conduit necrosis of the gastric pull-up. Postoperative pulmonary morbidity was 31%. Pneumonia was found in 17%. The 90 day mortality was 2.5%. Wound infection rate was 3%, and delayed gastric emptying occurred in 17% of patients. In follow up, 12.7% presented with diaphragmatic herniation of the bowel, requiring laparoscopic hernia reduction and hiatal reconstruction and colopexy several months after surgery. HMIE is a highly reliable technique, not only for the resection part but especially in terms of safety in reconstruction and anastomosis. For esophageal surgeons with experience in minimally invasive anti-reflux procedures and obesity surgery, HMIE is easy and fast to learn and adopt.
| S-EPMC6678699 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The clinical benefits of totally minimal invasive esophagectomy (TIME) compared to open esophagectomy are documented and include reduced morbidity like pulmonary infections, shorter hospital stay and an increase in short-term quality of life. However, transition to TIME can be associated with a learning curve associated increased morbidity. We report our implementation of TIME using a 2-step approach, where the thoracoscopic part was added to the laparoscopic part in carefully selected patients. The hypothesis was that the 2-step implementation provides a safe and efficient implementation without compromising the outcomes for the patients. The aim of this study was to evaluation the implementation of minimal invasive esophagectomy at Aarhus University Hospital, where a 2-step implementation strategy has been used. In this retrospective observational cohort study a total of 369 patients with esophagus or gastroesophageal cancers underwent esophagectomy from September 1st, 2016 to July 31st, 2021 in a single high-volume tertiary institution. Totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy was performed by experienced minimal invasive surgeons in 120 of the cases. The study presents the complication rates of the TIME patients in the implementation phase. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 7.5% of the cases and pneumonia occurred in 5.8% of the cases. The lymph node count reached 16 or more in 94.3% of the cases and R0-resection was performed in 98.3% of the cases. Textbook outcome for esophageal cancer surgery was achieved in 45.8% of the patients. Hybrid minimal invasive esophagectomy can serve as a step towards totally minimally invasive esophagectomy. In our institution, major learning curve associated complications was avoided and a high level of cancer control was achieved by a 2-step implementation strategy in carefully selected patients.
| S-EPMC10636444 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Esophagectomy is a major surgical procedure associated with a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive esophagectomy is becoming the preferred approach because of the potential to limit surgical trauma, reduce respiratory complications, and promote earlier functional recovery. Various hybrid and total minimally invasive surgical techniques have been introduced in clinical practice over the past 20 years, and minimally invasive esophagectomy has been shown equivalent to open surgery concerning the short-term outcomes. Implementation of a minimally invasive esophagectomy program is technically demanding and requires a significant learning curve and the infrastructure of a dedicated multidisciplinary center where optimal staging, individualized therapy, and perioperative care can be provided to the patient. Both hybrid and total minimally invasive techniques of esophagectomy have proven safe and effective in expert centers. The choice of the surgical approach should be driven by preoperative staging, tumor site and histology, comorbidity, patient's anatomy and physiological status, and surgeon's experience.
| S-EPMC5538984 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:The first line treatment regimen for esophageal cancer is still surgical resection and the choice of surgical scheme depends on surgeon. Now the efficacy comparison of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) is still controversial. AIM:To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of HMIE and OE in patients with esophageal cancer. METHODS:PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for related articles. The odds ratio (OR) or standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to evaluate the effectiveness of HMIE and OE. RESULTS:Seventeen studies including a total of 2397 patients were selected. HMIE was significantly associated with less blood loss (SMD = -0.43, 95%CI: -0.66, -0.20; P = 0.0002) and lower incidence of pulmonary complications (OR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.57, 0.90; P = 0.004). No significant differences were seen in the lymph node yield (SMD = 0.11, 95%CI: -0.08, 0.30; P = 0.26), operation time (SMD = 0.24, 95%CI: -0.14, 0.61; P = 0.22), total complications rate (OR = 0.68, 95%CI: 0.46, 0.99; P = 0.05), cardiac complication rate (OR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.62, 1.34; P = 0.64), anastomotic leak rate (OR = 0.95, 95%CI: 0.67, 1.35; P = 0.78), duration of intensive care unit stay (SMD = -0.01, 95%CI: -0.21, 0.19; P = 0.93), duration of hospital stay (SMD = -0.13, 95%CI: -0.28, 0.01; P = 0.08), and total mortality rates (OR = 0.70, 95%CI: 0.47, 1.06; P = 0.09) between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSION:Compared with the OE, HMIE shows less blood loss and pulmonary complications. However, further studies are necessary to evaluate the long-term oncologic outcomes of HMIE.
| S-EPMC6883181 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionTransthoracic esophagectomy is a highly complex and sophisticated procedure with high morbidity rates and a significant mortality. Surgical access has consistently become less invasive, transitioning from open esophagectomy to hybrid esophagectomy (HE) then to totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), and most recently to robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE), with each step demonstrating improved patient outcomes. Aim of this study with more than 600 patients is to complete a propensity-score matched comparison of postoperative short-term outcomes after highly standardized RAMIE vs. HE in a European high volume center.Patients and methodsSix hundred and eleven patients that underwent transthoracic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer between May 2016 and May 2021 were included in the study. In January 2019, we implemented an updated robotic standardized anastomotic technique using a circular stapler and ICG (indocyanine green) for RAMIE cases. Data were retrospectively analyzed from a prospectively maintained IRB-approved database. Outcomes of patients undergoing standardized RAMIE from January 2019 to May 2021 were compared to our overall cohort from May 2016-April 2021 (HE) after a propensity-score matching analysis was performed.ResultsSix hundred and eleven patients were analyzed. 107 patients underwent RAMIE. Of these, a total of 76 patients underwent a robotic thoracic reconstruction using the updated standardized circular stapled anastomosis (RAMIE group). A total of 535 patients underwent HE (Hybrid group). Seventy patients were propensity-score matched in each group and analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics. RAMIE patients had a significantly shorter ICU stay (p = 0.0218). Significantly more patients had no postoperative complications (Clavien Dindo 0) in the RAMIE group [47.1% vs. 27.1% in the HE group (p = 0.0225)]. No difference was seen in lymph node yield and R0 resection rates. Anastomotic leakage rates when matched were 14.3% in the hybrid group vs. 4.3% in the RAMIE group (p = 0.07).ConclusionOur analysis confirms the safety and feasibility of RAMIE and HE in a large cohort after propensity score matching. A regular postoperative course (Clavien-Dindo 0) and a shorter ICU stay were seen significantly more often after RAMIE compared to HE. Furthermore it shows that both procedures provide excellent short-term oncologic outcomes, regarding lymph node harvest and R0 resection rates. A randomized controlled trial comparing RAMIE and HE is still pending and will hopefully contribute to ongoing discussions.
| S-EPMC9485091 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was first introduced in the 1990s. Currently, it is a widely accepted surgical approach for the treatment of esophageal cancer, as it is an oncologically sound procedure; its advantages when compared to open procedures, including reduction in postoperative complications, reduction in the length of hospital stay, and improvement in quality of life, are well documented. However, debates are still ongoing about the safety and efficacy of MIE. The present review focuses on some of the current issues related to conventional MIE and robot-assisted MIE based on evidence from the current literature.
| S-EPMC7409881 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Adequate pain control after open esophagectomy is associated with reduced complications, earlier recovery and higher patient satisfaction. While further developing surgical procedures like robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) it is relevant to adapt postoperative pain management. The primary question of this observational survey was whether one of the two standard treatments, thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) or intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), is superior for pain control after RAMIE as the optimal pain management for these patients still remains unclear. Use of additional analgesics, changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), postoperative complications and duration of intensive care and hospital stay were also analyzed. Methods This prospective observational pilot study analyzed 50 patients undergoing RAMIE (postoperative PCA with piritramide or TEA using bupivacaine; each n = 25). Patient reported pain using the numeric rating scale score and differences in FEV1 using a micro spirometer were measured at postoperative day 1, 3 and 7. Additional data of secondary endpoints were collected from patient charts. Results Key demographics, comorbidity, clinical and operative variables were equivalently distributed. Patients receiving TEA had lower pain scores and a longer-lasting pain relief. Moreover, TEA was an independent predictive variable for reduced length of hospital stay (HR -3.560 (95% CI: −6.838 to −0.282), p = 0.034). Conclusions Although RAMIE leads to reduced surgical trauma, a less invasive pain therapy with PCA appears to be inferior compared to TEA in case of sufficient postoperative analgesia and length of hospital stay. According to the results of this observational pilot study analgesia with TEA provided better and longer-lasting pain relief compared to PCA. Further randomized controlled trials should be conducted to evaluate the optimal postoperative analgesic treatment for RAMIE.
| S-EPMC9988548 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Over the past decades, survival rates for patients with resectable esophageal cancer have improved significantly. Consequently, the sequelae of having a gastric conduit, such as development of micronutrient deficiencies, become increasingly apparent. This study investigated postoperative micronutrient trends in the follow-up of patients following a minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for cancer. Patients were included if they had at least one postoperative evaluation of iron, ferritin, vitamins B1, B6, B12, D, folate or methylmalonic acid. Data were available in 83 of 95 patients. Of these, 78.3% (65/83) had at least one and 37.3% (31/83) had more than one micronutrient deficiency at a median of 6.1 months (interquartile range (IQR) 5.4-7.5) of follow-up. Similar to the results found in previous studies, most common deficiencies identified were: iron, vitamin B12 and vitamin D. In addition, folate deficiency and anemia were detected in a substantial amount of patients in this cohort. At 24.8 months (IQR 19.4-33.1) of follow-up, micronutrient deficiencies were still common, however, most deficiencies normalized following supplementation on indication. In conclusion, patients undergoing a MIE are at risk of developing micronutrient deficiencies as early as 6 up to 24 months after surgery and should therefore be routinely checked and supplemented when needed.
| S-EPMC7146612 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Video 1Step 1. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.Video 2Step 2. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.Video 3Step 3. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.Video 4Step 4. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.Video 5Step 5. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.Video 6Step 6. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.Video 7Step 7. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.Video 8Step 8. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.Video 9Step 9. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.Video 10Step 10. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
| S-EPMC8691184 | biostudies-literature