Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Non-inferiority of minimally invasive oesophagectomy: an 8-year retrospective case series

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The trend towards laparoscopic surgery seen in other specialties has not occurred at the same pace in oesophagectomy. This stems from concerns regarding compromised oncological clearance, and complications associated with gastric tube necrosis and anastomotic failure. We present our experience of minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) compared to open and hybrid surgery. We aim to ascertain non-inferiority of MIO by evaluating impact on survival, oncological clearance by resection margin and lymph node harvest and post-operative complications.

Methods

Data were sourced retrospectively 2008–2015. Three approaches were studied. MIO (3-stage Mckeown), hybrid (2-stage Ivor Lewis, laparoscopy, thoracotomy) and open (2-stage Ivor Lewis).

Results

Five-year survival was 54.2%. Surgical approach had no significant impact on survival at any stage of disease (Stage 0/I p = 0.98; stage II p = 0.2; stage III p = 0.76). There was no statistically significant difference in oncological clearance by resection margins between procedures when compared by disease stage (p = 0.49). A higher number of nodes were harvested in hybrid [median 27.5 (6–65)] and open surgeries [median 26 (4–54)] than in MIO [median 20 (7–44)] (p > 0.01). Numbers of nodes resected did not impact risk of recurrence [recurrence, median 25 (6–54), no recurrence, 26 (4–65)] (p = 0.25). Anastomotic strictures (22.4%) and potential leaks (17.9%) were more common in MIO (strictures p > 0.01, leaks p = 0.08), although associated morbidity was lower. Respiratory complications were less common in MIO (2.9%) versus hybrid (13.3%) (p = 0.02). Wound infection and chyle leak were also lower (wound 1.5% MIO 3.5% open, p = 0.6; chyle leak 1.5% MIO, 6.7% hybrid, p = 0.2).

Conclusions

Our results show no negative impact of MIO on survival or oncological clearance. Respiratory and wound complications are lower in MIO, but rates of anastomotic strictures and potential anastomotic leaks are increased. This may be due to the longer length of conduit and subclinical ischaemia at the anastomosis and merits further evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Allum WH, Blazeby JM, Griffin SM, On behalf of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, the British Society of Gastroenterology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology et al (2011) Guidelines for the management of oesophageal and gastric cancer. Gut 60:1449e1472. doi:10.1136/gut.2010.228254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chadwick G et al National Oesophago-gastric Cancer Audit (2010-2015) The Royal College of surgeons of England, Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership Ltd. (HQIP), The Association of Upper GI surgeons (AUGIS), The British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)

  3. Veeramootoo D, Shore AC, Shields B et al (2010) Ischemic conditioning shows a time-dependent influence on the fate of the gastric conduit after minimally invasive esophagectomy. Surg Endosc 24(5):1126–1131. doi:10.1007/s00464-009-0739-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. www.cancerresearchuk.org > oesophageal cancer > survival. Accessed July 29 16

  5. Portale G, Hagen JA, Peters JH et al (2005) Modern 5-year survival of resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma: single institution experience with 263 patients. j.jamcollsurg. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2005.12.022

    Google Scholar 

  6. Burdall OC, Boddy AP, Fullick J et al (2015) A comparative study of survival after minimally invasive and open oesophagectomy. Surg Endosc 29(2):431–437. doi:10.1007/s00464-014-3694-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhou C, Zhang L, Wang H et al (2015) Superiority of minimally invasive oesophagectomy in reducing in-hospital mortality of patients with resectable oesophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132889

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chan DS, Reid TD, Howell I, Lewis WG (2013) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the influence of circumferential resection margin involvement on survival in patients with operable oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg 100(4):456–464. doi:10.1002/bjs.9015

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sihag S, Wright CD, Wain JC et al (2012) Comparison of perioperative outcomes following open versus minimally invasive Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy at a single, high-volume centre. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 42(3):430–437. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezs031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (2006) Management of oesophageal and gastric cancer. A national clinical guideline. ISBN 1 899893 59 8. www.sign.ac.uk. Accessed 6 Jan 2017

  11. Lagergren J, Mattsson F, Zylstra J et al (2016) Extent of lymphadenectomy and prognosis after esophageal cancer surgery. JAMA Surg 151(1):32–39. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2015.2611

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW et al (2012) Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 379(9829):1887–1892. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60516-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Safranek PM, Cubitt J, Booth MI, Dehn TC (2010) Review of open and minimal access approaches to oesophagectomy for cancer. Br J Surg 97(12):1845–1853. doi:10.1002/bjs.7231

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zehetner J (2015) Intraoperative assessment of perfusion of the gastric graft and correlation with anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy. Ann Surg 262(1):74–78

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Wormuth JK, Heitmiller RF (2006) Esophageal conduit necrosis. Thorac Surg Clin 2006(16):11–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hu H, Ye T, Zhang Y et al (2012) Modifications in retrosternal reconstruction after oesophagogastrectomy may reduce the incidence of anastomotic leakage. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 42(2):359–363. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezs015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Urschel JD (1995) Esophagogastrostomy anastomotic leaks complicating esophagectomy: a review. Am J Surg 169(6):634–640

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhong S, Wu Q, Sun S et al (2014) Risk factors of benign anastomostic strictures after esophagectomy with cervical reconstruction. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi 17(9):877–880

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Johansson J, Oberg S, Wenner J et al (2009) Impact of proton pump inhibitors on benign anastomotic stricture formations after esophagectomy and gastric tube reconstruction: results from a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg 250(5):667–673. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181bcb139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ruurda JP, van der Sluis PC, van der Horst S, van Hilllegersberg R (2015) Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review. J Surg Oncol 112:257–265. doi:10.1002/jso.23922

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Van der Sluis PC, Ruurda JP, van der Horst S et al (2012) Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer, a randomized controlled trial (ROBOT trial). Trials 13:230. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-230

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Sarah Trickett, Mike Goodman, Jane Wraight, Emma Chester (upper GI cancer clinical nurse specialists).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Upper Gastrointestinal and Oesophago-Gastric Surgery, Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Castle Lane East, Bournemouth, BH7 7DW, UK

    L. Findlay, C. Yao, D. H. Bennett, R. Byrom & N. Davies

  2. Department of General Surgery, Salisbury District Hospital, Odstock Road, Salisbury, SP2 8BJ, UK

    L. Findlay

Authors
  1. L. Findlay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. H. Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Byrom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. N. Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Findlay.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Laura Findlay, Caroline Yao, David Bennett, Richard Byrom and Nick Davies have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Findlay, L., Yao, C., Bennett, D.H. et al. Non-inferiority of minimally invasive oesophagectomy: an 8-year retrospective case series. Surg Endosc 31, 3681–3689 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5406-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5406-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation