Laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy at a low-volume center

Background and Objectives:

Surgical treatment of esophageal cancer is associated with a high rate of morbidity, even in specialized centers. Minimally invasive esophageal resection has become increasingly feasible and is gaining popularity in some high-volume institutions. This study assesses the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy performed by a single surgeon at a single low-volume institution over a 20-month period.

Methods:

Over the study period, 16 patients underwent laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy. All patients were men with an average age of 70 years (range, 50 to 81).

Results:

Two patients required intraoperative conversion to alternative surgical techniques, 1 to an Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy and 1 to an open transhiatal approach. Average operative time was 198 minutes (range, 147 to 303). Mean hospital stay was 16.7 days (range, 9 to 30). The average number of resected lymph nodes was 11.7, and 2 patients had benign pathology. No deaths occurred in the 30-day postoperative period.

Conclusion:

Laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy is an advanced laparoscopic procedure that can be performed with equivalent morbidity and mortality by a low-volume surgeon in a low-volume center with results comparable to those of high-volume centers. While several authors have demonstrated a correlation between lower mortality rates and high-volume esophagectomy hospitals, our results support surgeon experience as more important than the absolute number of procedures performed each year.     

An audit of surgical outcomes of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma were increasingly recognized as two entities with different biologic behaviors and prognosis. Surgical risks and oncologic benefits of transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients are not confessed. METHODS: Between 1994 and 2005, 216 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients underwent esophagectomy were enrolled and analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-six patients underwent transthoracic esophagectomy and 50 patients underwent transhiatal esophagectomy. The overall hospital mortality and postoperative complication rates were 9.7 and 49%, respectively. The amount of intra-operative blood loss or transfusion, postoperative complication rate, lengths of hospital stay and hospital mortality rate were not significantly different between both groups. However, shorter operative time was noticed in transhiatal group (p<0.001). The overall 5-year survival rate was 16.8%. ESCC patients underwent either transthoracic or transhiatal esophagectomy had comparable long-term survival. The pTNM stage was independent prognostic factor for patients underwent transthoracic esophagectomy. However, location of tumor (p=0.009) and pathologic tumor length (p=0.012) were predictors of prognosis for patients underwent transhiatal esophagectomy. CONCLUSIONS: For esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients, no significant differences in postoperative mortality or morbidity rates were observed between transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy. However, traditional pTNM staging system might underestimate the severity of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients who underwent transhiatal esophagectomy. The information of dissimilar prognostic factors for transhiatal or transthoracic esophagectomies will be helpful in tailoring more individualized adjuvant therapy to optimize esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patient's outcome.     

Limited operation for patients with T1 esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Transhiatal esophagectomy without thoracotomy has been introduced as a minimally invasive operation to prevent postoperative complications in patients with relatively early-stage esophageal cancer who have preoperative pulmonary or cardiovascular complications or who are in a high age bracket. However, this procedure for patients with esophageal cancer remains controversial, especially as regards curative surgery because complete intrathoracic lymphadenectomy cannot be performed in this operation. Thus, cancer recurrence after this operation has been considered to be high. To evaluate the benefits of this less invasive surgery for patients with T1 esophageal cancer, the prognoses of patients who underwent transhiatal esophagectomy without thoracotomy were compared with those of patients who underwent traditional esophagectomy with thoracotomy. METHODS: Between 1989 and 1998, 33 patients with T1 esophageal cancer were operated on in our hospital. We introduced transhiatal esophagectomy without thoracotomy in 19 patients who were over 70 years old or who had preoperative complications (transhiatal group). The remaining 14 patients were treated with the transthoracic procedure (transthoracic group). These 33 patients were followed up at our hospital until the end of 1999. The postoperative complications and prognoses in the two groups were compared. RESULTS: We were able to reduce the operation time using the transhiatal procedure. Even though no significant difference was detected, there were fewer postoperative pulmonary complications with this procedure (11%) than with the transthoracic procedure (21%). The incidences of in-hospital mortality did not differ between the two groups. Cancer recurrence was detected in 5 of 19 patients (26%) in the transhiatal group and in 5 of 14 patients (36%) in the transthoracic group; no difference was observed (P=0.562). The 5-year survival rate (58%) of the transhiatal group was no different from that of the transthoracic group (62%, P=0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Complete intrathoracic lymphadenectomy cannot be performed along with transhiatal esophagectomy; however, the prognoses of patients who were treated with this procedure were no different from those of patients who were treated with transthoracic esophagectomy. Thus, transhiatal esophagectomy without thoracotomy might be a justifiable operation for compromised patients with T1 esophageal cancer.     

Simplifying minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy with the inversion approach: Lessons learned from the first 20 cases

HYPOTHESIS: The laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy can be simplified and performed safely and effectively by using a novel esophageal inversion technique. DESIGN: Case series describing technique, initial experience, and learning curve with laparoscopic inversion esophagectomy. SETTING: Tertiary care university hospital and veteran's hospital. PATIENTS: Twenty consecutive patients with high-grade dysplasia (n = 16) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (n = 4). INTERVENTION: Laparoscopic inversion esophagectomy, a totally laparoscopic approach to transhiatal esophagectomy that incorporates distal to proximal inversion to improve mediastinal exposure and ease of dissection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perioperative end points and complications, compared between the first and second groups of 10 patients. RESULTS: There were 19 men and 1 woman. Median operative time was 448 minutes. Median blood loss was 175 cm3. Median intensive care unit stay was 4 days, and median total hospital stay was 9 days. Overall anastomotic leak rate was 20%. Five patients developed an anastomotic stricture, all successfully managed with endoscopic dilation. There were 2 recurrent laryngeal nerve injuries, which resolved. There was no intraoperative or 30-day mortality. Between the first 10 consecutive cases and last 10 procedures, the incidence of anastomotic leak and stricture formation decreased from 30% to 10% and 40% to 10%, respectively. During this period, the number of lymph nodes harvested increased 9-fold, and duration of intensive care unit stay decreased from 8.00 to 2.50 days. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic inversion esophagectomy is a safe procedure. The learning curve for the inversion approach is approximately 10 operations in the hands of esophageal surgeons with advanced laparoscopic expertise.     

Laparoscopic transhiatal surgery of the esophagus.

OBJECTIVE: Esophagectomy is an operation with high morbidity and mortality. Its adoption as a minimally invasive operation worldwide has been slow, but the potential benefits of reducing the trauma of surgery need to be considered. Our 30-month experience with transhiatal esophagectomy in a district general hospital is presented herein. METHODS: Patients were considered for surgery after radiological staging had excluded inoperable disease. Laparoscopic staging was initially performed. Patients with tumors of the esophagus and high-grade dysplasia in a Barrett's esophagus were included. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were referred for consideration for resectional surgery. Nine underwent outpatient laparoscopy only. Twenty patients (age range, 34 to 78, 15 males:5 females) underwent resectional surgery. Seventeen transhiatal resections were completed, 2 were converted to open procedures, and 1 transhiatal resection of a benign tumor was performed. Median time of surgery was 415 minutes (range, 320 to 480) and blood loss was 300 mL (range, 200 to 350). The median length of post-operative ventilation and critical care stay were 1 (range, 1 to 4) and 4 (range, 2 to 8) days. Median duration of hospitalization was 17 days (range, 10 to 28). Thirty-day mortality was 0; 1 patient who was converted to an open procedure died after a cerebrovascular event on day 34. CONCLUSION: A zero mortality rate for laparoscopic resection and a low-morbidity rate compare well with morbidity and mortality in reported series using this method and open surgery. Laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy is an advanced, complex procedure that can be performed safely in a district general hospital setting.     

Open transthoracic or transhiatal esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy in terms of morbidity, mortality and survival

Background Surgical treatment of esophageal cancer is associated with a high rate of morbidity and mortality even in specialized centers. Minimally invasive surgery has been proposed to decrease these complications. Methods The authors present their results regarding postoperative complications and the survival rate at 3 years, comparing the classic open procedures (transthoracic or transhiatal esophagectomy) with minimally invasive surgery. Surgical procedures were performed according to procedures published elsewhere. Results The study enrolled 166 patients who underwent surgery between 1990 and 2003. Open transthoracic surgery was performed for 60 patients. In this group of patients, postoperative mortality was observed in 11% of the cases. Major, minor, and late complications were observed in 61.6% of the patients, and the 3-year survival rate was 30% for this group. Open transhiatal surgery was performed for 59 patients. The morbidity, mortality, and 3-year rate were almost the same as for the transthoracic surgery group. For the 47 patients submitted to minimally invasive procedures (thoracoscopic and laparoscopic), the complications and mortality rates were significantly reduced (38.2% and 6.4%, respectively). For the patients submitted to minimally invasive surgery, the 3-year survival rate was 45.4%. It is important to clarify that the patients submitted to minimally invasive surgery manifested early stages of the diseases, and that this the reason why the morbimortality and survival rates were better. Conclusions The transthoracic and transhiatal open approaches have similar early and late results. Minimally invasive surgery is an option for patients with esophageal carcinoma, with reported results similar to those for open surgery. This approach is indicated mainly for selected patients with early stages of the disease. Presented as a “free paper” during the 9th World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery, Cancun, Mexico, 4-7 February, 2004     

Laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND: Traditional esophagectomy may be associated with mortality, considerable morbidity, and lengthy recovery. It is often performed in cancer patients who are typically older, have associated comorbidities, and are often malnourished, all factors that increase surgical risk. Minimally invasive esophagectomy has the potential advantages of being a less traumatic procedure with an easier postoperative recovery and fewer wound and pulmonary complications. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy was performed. Assessed parameters included patient demographics and operative data, pathology results, and long-term follow-up of at least 12 months. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients underwent laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy; 19 had esophageal cancer. Two patients were operated on for Barrett esophagus, and 1 patient had achalasia. The majority of patients were men (82%), and the mean age was 59 years (range 15 to 74 years); 1 patient (4.5%) was converted to open surgery. The average operative time was 380 minutes (range 285 to 525 minutes), and the average blood loss was 220 mL; only 3 patients required transfusion. The median hospital stay was 8 days (range 5 to 46 days). Postoperative mortality occurred in 1 patient (4.5%), and postoperative complications developed in 6 patients (27.2%). In the 19 cancer patients, the average number of harvested nodes was 14.3 (range 10 to 19). The average follow-up was 30 months (range 12 to 48 months). The overall survival for cancer patients was 61% (11 of 19), and disease-free survival was 39% (7/19). CONCLUSIONS: Esophagectomy is a major surgery with considerable morbidity and potential mortality. Minimally invasive esophagectomy is a feasible approach that can be safely performed by surgeons with extensive experience in that field. Advantages include less intraoperative blood loss, a smaller incision, and a potentially faster postoperative recovery. In cancer patients, immediate oncologic goals of adequate margins and lymph node dissection can be achieved, and long-term outcome appears to be similar to that found with open approaches.     

Thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy for benign and malignant disease: lessons learned from 46 consecutive procedures

BACKGROUND: Transhiatal and transthoracic esophagectomy are common approaches for esophageal resection. The literature is limited regarding the combined thoracoscopic and laparoscopic approach to esophagectomy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of combined thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy for the treatment of benign and malignant esophageal disease. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective chart review of 46 consecutive minimally invasive esophagectomies performed between August 1998 and September 2002. Indications for esophagectomy were carcinoma (n = 38), Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia (n = 3), and recalcitrant stricture (n = 5). Of 38 patients with carcinoma 23 (61%) had neoadjuvant therapy. The main outcome measures were operative time, blood loss, length of intensive care unit and hospital stay, conversion rate, morbidity, mortality, pathology, disease recurrence, and survival. RESULTS: Approaches to esophagectomy were thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy (n = 41), thoracoscopic and laparoscopic Ivor Lewis resection (n = 3), abdominal only laparoscopic esophagogastrectomy (n = 1), and hand-assisted laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy (n = 1). Minimally invasive esophagectomy was successfully completed in 45 (97.8%) of 46 patients. The mean operative time was 350 +/- 75 minutes and the mean blood loss was 279 +/- 184 mL. The median length of intensive care unit stay was 2 days and median length of stay was 8 days. Major complications occurred in 17.4% of patients and minor complications occurred in 10.8%. Late complications were seen in 26.1% of patients. The overall mortality was 4.3%. Among the 38 patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer the 3-year survival was 57%. In a mean followup of 26 months there was no trocar site or neck wound recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: A thoracoscopic and laparoscopic approach to esophagectomy is technically feasible and safe for the treatment of benign and malignant esophageal disease. With a mean followup of 26 months thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy appears to be an oncologically acceptable surgical approach for the treatment of esophageal cancer.     

Transhiatal esophagectomy: a safe alternative for selected patients.

One hundred one consecutive patients underwent an esophagectomy with gastric interposition for benign and malignant processes from January 1982 through July 1990. Seventy-seven underwent transhiatal esophagectomy and 24, transthoracic esophagectomy. Multivariate analysis was performed comparing the hospitalization experience of the two groups. There was no significant difference found between the mean intraoperative blood loss for transhiatal esophagectomy (770 +/- 105 mL) and that of transthoracic esophagectomy (700 +/- 175 mL). There was a significant difference between operative time, with transhiatal esophagectomy averaging 5.4 hours and transthoracic esophagectomy averaging 7.3 hours. Postoperative stay was not significantly different although there was a wide range of values for the transthoracic esophagectomy group. An 8% operative mortality was experienced by both groups. There were a significant number of minor anastomotic leaks at the cervical anastomotic level for the transhiatal esophagectomy group, but all responded to nonoperative management. The highest morbidity and mortality were seen in the subgroup of transhiatal esophagectomies done for laryngocervical malignancies. The lowest morbidity and mortality were seen in the subgroup of 12 patients who underwent transhiatal esophagectomy for nonmalignant esophageal conditions. Transhiatal esophagectomy appears to be a safe alternative for early intrathoracic esophageal malignancies at any level, for bulky distal esophageal lesions, and for benign conditions requiring total esophagectomy.     

Minimally invasive transhiatal and transthoracic esophagectomy

Background Standard esophagectomy requires either a laparotomy with transhiatal removal of the esophagus or a combination of laparotomy and thoracotomy. Currently, it still is associated with a high rate of morbidity and mortality. Complications leading to greater morbidity and mortality are rarely seen after minimally invasive surgery. The authors present their experience with 25 minimally invasive esophageal resections. Methods Between August 1st, 2003 and November 30th, 2005, the authors performed 25 minimally invasive esophageal resections for 4 woman and 21 men. Data were acquired prospectively. Results In this series, a laparoscopic transhiatal approach was performed in 9 cases, a combined laparoscopic-thoracoscopic procedure in 12 cases, and laparoscopic creation of a gastric tube combined with thoracotomy in 4 cases. No conversion became necessary. The mean operation time was 165 min (range, 150–180 min) for the laparoscopic transhiatal approach and 300 min (range, 240–360 min) for both combination approaches. Using the combined laparoscopic-thoracoscopic procedure, 23 lymph nodes (range, 19–26 lymph nodes) were removed, and using the laparoscopic transhiatal approach, 14 lymph nodes (range, 12–17 lymph nodes) were removed. The median stay in the intensive care unit was 1.5 days (range, 1–22 days), and the overall postoperative stay was 10 days (range, 7–153 days). Two intraoperative complications and two cervical anastomotic leakages were observed. The 30-day mortality rate was 0%. Conclusion The findings demonstrate that laparoscopic transhiatal and combined laparoscopic/thoracoscopic esophagectomy are feasible and can be performed with low rates of morbidity and mortality. Due to an equal extent of lymph node dissection, there should be no difference in long-term survival between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery.     

Comparison of open three-field and minimally-invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

The aim was to compare the early outcomes between thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy (TLE) and open three-field esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. We retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 96 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent TLE, and 78 patients who underwent open three-field esophagectomy from March 2008 to September 2010. All the operations were successful. There was no significant difference between TLE and open three-field esophagectomy with regard to the number of lymph nodes procured (17.75±5.56 vs. 18.03±6.20, P>0.05), complications (32.3% vs. 46.2%, P>0.05), and operative mortality (2.1% vs. 3.8%, P>0.05). However, hospital stay was significantly shorter in the TLE group than the open esophagectomy group (12.64±8.82 vs. 17.53±6.40 days, P<0.01), and the TLE group had significantly less blood loss (346.68±41.13 vs. 519.26±47.74 ml, P<0.01). This showed that TLE for esophageal cancer offers results as good as or better than those with open three-field esophagectomy.     

Comparison of oncological outcomes after laparoscopic transhiatal and open esophagectomy for T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma

Introduction  This study compared pathological characteristics and patterns of disease recurrence for patients with pT1 esophageal adenocarcinoma treated with either laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy or open esophagectomy. Methods  From January 2000-December 2006, 44 patients had pT1 esophageal adenocarcinoma after esophagectomy. No patients had neoadjuvant treatment. Twenty-four patients had an Ivor Lewis operation, 4 had an open transhiatal and 16 had a laparoscopic transhiatal operation. Results  There were 37 men. The median age was 64 years (range 35–80 years). Median lymph node yield was 19 (10–51) after an Ivor Lewis operation, 16 (3–28) after an open transhiatal operation and 15 (4–41) after a laparoscopic transhiatal operation. There were two in-hospital deaths (5%), both following open Ivor Lewis operation. All patients in the laparoscopic group had N0 disease; none received adjuvant treatment. Two patients (7%) in the open group had N1 disease, of whom one patient received adjuvant chemotherapy. Eleven patients had submucosal invasion. Alive patients had median follow-up of 36 months (range 5–87 months). One patient in the laparoscopic group had recurrence at 22 months. This patient had poorly differentiated N0 disease which was limited to the mucosa and died at 24 months. Two patients in the open group developed recurrence, at 6 months (N0 disease with submucosal invasion) and 8 months (N1 disease with submucosal invasion) and died at 7 and 14 months, respectively. Both patients had poorly differentiated tumours. The second patient with N1 disease is alive and well at 14 months. Estimated survival (Kaplan–Meier) at 3 years was 93%. Conclusions  As compared with open transthoracic esophagectomy, there is no oncological detriment in the treatment of pT1 esophageal adenocarcinoma by laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy. The incidence of recurrence is small (7%) but can occur even in patients with tumour limited to the mucosa or N0 disease.     

Perioperative granulocyte colony-stimulating factor does not prevent severe infections in patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE: Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is associated with substantial postoperative morbidity as a result of infectious complications. In a prior phase II study, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was shown to improve leukocyte function and to reduce infection rates after esophagectomy. The aim of the current randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase III trial was to investigate the clinical efficacy of perioperative G-CSF administration in reducing infection and mortality after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty five patients with resectable esophageal cancer were randomly assigned to perioperative G-CSF at standard doses (77 patients) or placebo (76 patients), administered from 2 days before until day 7 after esophagectomy. The G-CSF and placebo groups were comparable as regards age, gender, risk, cancer stage, frequency of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy, and type of esophagectomy (transthoracic or transhiatal esophageal resection). RESULTS: Of 155 randomized patients, 153 were eligible for the intention-to-treat analysis. The rate of infection occurring within the first 10 days after esophagectomy was 43.4% (confidence interval 32.8-55.9%) in the placebo and 44.2% (confidence interval 32.1-55.3%) in the G-CSF group (P = 0.927). 30-day mortality amounted to 5.2% in the G-CSF group versus 5.3% in the placebo group (P = 0.985). Similar results were found in the per-protocol analysis. CONCLUSION: Perioperative administration of G-CSF failed to reduce postoperative morbidity, infection rate, or mortality in patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy.     

Transhiatal esophagectomy

Between 1991-2001, 40 patients underwent esophagectomy without thoracotomy for: caustic esophageal stenosis (26 cases), cervical esophageal cancer (1), lower esophageal cancer (7), and acute post-caustic oesophagitis (2). Thirty-four patients underwent transhiatal esophagectomy, 3 patients had an esophagectomy by "stripping" and in 3 other patients a combination of stripping and transhiatal esophagectomy. Postoperative complications included: injuries of the laryngeal recurrent nerve (2), pulmonary complications (13), anastomotic leakage (5). Two patients died in the postoperative period one from a myocardial infarction and the other from an acute myocardial dilatation. Trans-hiatal esophagectomy can be considered as a viable alternative to transthoracic esophagectomy in the management of the benign and malignant diseases of the esophagus. Transhiatal esophagectomy is a safe method of resection because of its reported lower morbidity and mortality and similar survival rates compared to transthoracic esophagectomy.     

Laparoscopic versus open gastroplasty in esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a comparative study

How best to approach esophagectomy is a controversial issue. In the last decade, the opportunity to use minimally invasive surgical methods for esophagectomy has been documented, but their real advantages over conventional surgery have yet to be clearly established. The aim of this study was to compare a series of patients who underwent laparoscopic esophagectomy with those who underwent open surgery to ascertain the feasibility, safety, and clinical advantages of the former surgical techniques. Between January 2002 and May 2004, 14 patients with cancer of the esophagus underwent laparoscopic esophagectomy and another 14 had conventional open esophagectomy. Their demographic features, and intraoperative and postoperative data were compared. The 2 groups were comparable in terms of age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and site of the neoplasm. The operating times were the same for transhiatal laparoscopic esophagectomy and conventional surgery, although using the thoraco-laparoscopic access took longer than the thoraco-laparotomic procedure (P<0.05). The hospital stay was shorter after laparoscopy (P<0.05). No differences emerged in terms of morbidity, mortality, number of transfusions, and time in the intensive care. The numbers of lymph nodes removed were comparable. In conclusion, it is feasible and safe to use a laparoscopic approach instead of open surgery for esophagectomy, but the former does not offer very significant clinical advantages in the postoperative stage. A shorter hospital stay seems to be the most significant finding. The minimally invasive procedure would seem to assure oncological radicality because it enables lymphadenectomy to be as thorough as in the conventional surgical approach.     

Minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy: lessons learned

Background Minimally invasive esophagectomy has the potential to minimize the morbidity of esophageal resection and is particularly suited to the transhiatal approach. This report details our experience with this technique and the lessons we have learned. Methods A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy was performed. Parameters assessed included patient demographics, tumor pathology, operative and postoperative course, and survival. Results Eighteen patients underwent minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy [median age = 69 years (range = 36–79)]. Seventeen were operated on for cancer, including 13 adenocarcinomas and 4 squamous cell carcinomas (median histological stage = 2, range = 1–3), and 1 for high-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s. One patient had neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Two patients underwent nonemergency conversion to open surgery. The median duration of operation was 300 min (range = 180–450). All anastomoses were end-to-side hand-sewn. No patients received a red cell transfusion. The 30-day mortality was zero. Complications developed in 15 patients, including 7 respiratory and 10 recurrent laryngeal nerve injuries. There were two anastomotic leaks. Six patients developed stenosis requiring dilatation. The median length of stay was 15 days (range = 10–39). The median number of nodes harvested was 10 (range = 2–26). At a median follow-up of 13 months (range = 4–42), 13 patients were alive. Conclusions Minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy is feasible in our unit, with acceptable mortality. The high rate of anastomotic stenosis has resulted in a change to a semimechanical, side-to-side isoperistaltic technique. The high rate of recurrent laryngeal nerve injuries has resulted in the avoidance of metal retractors at the tracheo-esophageal groove.     

Thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy: initial experience and outcomes

Background: Although surgical resection currently is the preferred treatment for fit patients with resectable esophageal cancers, it is associated with a relatively high risk of morbidity and significant perioperative mortality. Currently, a range of open surgical approaches are used. More recently, minimally invasive approaches have become feasible, with the potential to reduce perioperative morbidity. This study investigated the outcomes from one such approach. Methods: Outcome data were collected prospectively for 36 consecutive patients who underwent a minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. A three-stage approach was used, with all the patients undergoing a thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization, combined with either open or hand-assisted laparoscopic abdominal gastric mobilization, and open cervical anastomosis. An open abdominal approach was used for 15 of the patients and a hand-assisted laparoscopic approach for 21. A total of 34 patients had invasive malignancy, whereas 2 had preinvasive disease. A group of 23 patients (68%) who had invasive malignancies also received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Results: The mean operating time ranged from 190 to 360 min (mean, 263 min). The median postoperative hospital stay was 16 days. In-hospital mortality was 5.5% (2/36), and perioperative morbidity was 41%. The perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing an open abdominal approach and those who had hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery were similar. For the patients who underwent a hand-assisted laparoscopic abdominal procedure, the total operating time was shorter (248 vs 281 min), and the blood loss was less (223 vs 440 ml). The median follow-up period was 30 months. The 4-year survival predicted by Kaplan–Meir for the 34 patients with invasive malignancy was 44%. Conclusion: The outcome for esophagectomy using thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization, with or without hand-assisted laparoscopic abdominal surgery, was comparable with data from conventional open surgical approaches. These approaches can be performed with an acceptable level of perioperative morbidity. Further application of these techniques, with close scrutiny of outcome data, is appropriate.     

同时发生的食管胃重复癌的外科治疗

目的探讨同时发生的食管、胃重复癌的外科治疗方法及效果.方法1985年1月至2005年1月收治同时发生的食管、胃重复癌12例,均为男性,平均年龄56.8岁.全组均行手术治疗,成功完成同期食管次全切除并全胃切除,结肠代食管并空肠“P”袢代胃重建消化道10例,食管内翻拔脱并全胃切除,结肠代食管并空肠“P”袢代胃重建消化道1例,手术探查1例.结果全组无围术期死亡.术后颈部吻合口瘘2例,不全肠梗阻1例,均经保守治疗后痊愈;术后腹部切口裂开1例,二期缝合治愈.9例获得随访,1、3、5年生存率分别100%、44.4%、22.2%.结论同期食管次全切除并全胃切除,结肠代食管并空肠“P”袢代胃重建消化道是根治同时发生的食管、胃重复癌安全有效的外科治疗方法.     

Optimum Treatment Strategy for Superficial Esophageal Cancer: Endoscopic Mucosal Resection versus Radical Esophagectomy

This study was designed to determine the optimum treatment for a superficial esophageal cancer involving the mucosal or submucosal layer of the esophagus. The subjects were 150 patients with a superficial esophageal cancer who underwent endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or esophagectomy in Kurume University Hospital from 1981 to 1997. The mortality and morbidity rates, survival rate, and recurrence rate were retrospectively compared for (1) 35 patients who underwent EMR and 37 patients who underwent esophagectomy for a mucosal esophageal cancer and (2) 45 patients who underwent extended radical esophagectomy and 33 patients who underwent less radical esophagectomy for a submucosal esophageal cancer. Among the 72 patients with a mucosal cancer, lymph node metastasis/recurrence was observed in only one (1%); whereas of 78 patients with a submucosal cancer it was observed in 30 (38%). Among patients with a mucosal cancer the mortality and morbidity rates after EMR were lower than for those after esophagectomy. The survival rate after EMR was the same as that after esophagectomy. No recurrence was observed after either treatment modality. Among the patients with a submucosal cancer, the survival rate was higher and the recurrence rate lower after extended radical esophagectomy; than after less radical esophagectomy; the mortality and morbidity rates after extended radical esophagectomy were the same as those after less radical esophagectomy. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the treatment modality (EMR versus esophagectomy) did not influence the survival of patients with a mucosal esophageal cancer, whereas it strongly influenced the survival of patients with a submucosal esophageal cancer. We concluded that EMR was the mainstay of treatment for a mucosal esophageal cancer, and extended radical esophagectomy was the mainstay of treatment for a submucosal esophageal cancer.     

Video-assisted esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Video-assisted surgery for esophageal cancer is an advanced surgical technique. It has been developed on the basis of the concept of minimally invasive surgery. Given that there are several options regarding the operative procedures for thoracic esophageal cancer, several laparoscopic approaches have been proposed. The first video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy through a right thoracoscopic approach and the first transhiatal esophagectomy were reported in the early 1990s. A mediastinoscope-assisted esophagectomy has also been reported as a substitute for a blunt dissection of the esophagus. Moreover, a video-assisted Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy by right thoracotomy with intrathoracic anastomosis has also been performed. Furthermore, laparoscopic gastric mobilization and gastroplasty are also widely accepted substitutions for open laparotomy. This article reviews the literature on the laparoscopic approaches for esophageal cancer.