Comparison of short-term clinical outcomes between robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy and video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThough robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is demonstrated to offer a better visualization and provide a fine dissection of the mediastinal structures to facilitate the complex thoracoscopic operation, the superiorities of RAMIE over MIE have not been well verified. The aim of this study was to explore the actual superiorities through comparing short-term results of RAMIE with that of MIE.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE and web of science databases were systematically searched up to September 1, 2020 for case-controlled studies that compared RAMIE with TLMIE.ResultsFourteen studies were identified, with a total of 2,887 patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer, including 1,435 patients subjected to RAMIE group and 1,452 patients subjected to MIE group. The operative time in RAMIE was still significantly longer than that in MIE group (OR =0.785; 95% CI, 0.618–0.952; P<0.001). The incidence of pneumonia was significantly lower in RAMIE group compared with MIE group (OR =0.677; 95% CI, 0.468–0.979; P=0.038).ConclusionsRAMIE has the superiorities over MIE in short-term outcomes in terms of pneumonia and vocal cord palsy. Therefore, RAMIE could be considered as a standard treatment for patients with esophageal cancer.     

Outcomes of robotic esophagectomy

Esophagectomy has long been considered the standard of care for early-stage (≤ T2N0) esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), using a combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approach, was first performed in the 1990s and showed significant improvements over open approaches. Refinement of MIE arrived in the form of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in 2004. MIE is a challenging procedure for which consensus on optimal technique is still elusive. Although nonrobotic MIE confers significant advantages over open approaches, MIE remains associated with stubbornly high rates of complications, including pneumonia, aspiration, arrhythmia, anastomotic leakage, surgical site infection, and vocal cord palsy. RAMIE was envisioned to improve operative-associated morbidity while achieving equivalent or superior oncologic outcomes to nonrobotic MIE. However, owing to RAMIE’s significant upfront costs, steep learning curve, and other requirements, adoption remains less than widespread and convincing evidence supporting its use from well-designed studies is lacking. In this review, we compare operative, oncologic, and quality-of-life outcomes between open esophagectomy, nonrobotic MIE, and RAMIE. Although RAMIE remains a relatively new and underexplored modality, several studies in the literature show that it is feasible and results in similar outcomes to other MIE approaches. Moreover, RAMIE has been associated with favorable patient satisfaction and quality of life.     

A preliminary experience with minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy

With several small series examining minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomies, we look to contribute to a growing experience. In reporting our initial results, safety, initial oncologic completeness, and preliminary outcomes with a minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy were demonstrated. From 2007 to 2010, 40 minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomies were carried out. The approach was a laparoscopic mobilization of the stomach and a thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization and creation of a high intrathoracic anastomosis. Indications included esophageal cancer in 39 patients and esophageal gastrointestinal stromal tumor in one patient. Median age was 62 (range 39-77) with 31 (78%) male patients. Non-emergent conversion was required in two (5%) patients. Twenty-five (63%) patients underwent neoadjuvant therapy. Mean operative time was 364 minutes (range 285-455), and mean blood loss was 205 cc (range 100-400). All patients underwent an R0 resection including the removal of all Barrett's esophagus, and mean number of nodes harvested was 21 (range 11-41). Median intensive care unit stay was 1 day (range 1-3), and hospital stay was 7 days (range 6-19). There were no anastomotic leaks and no 30-day mortality. Postoperative complications included eight (21%) patients with atrial fibrillation and two (5%) chylothorax, one requiring ligation. At a mean follow-up of 16.5 months (range 1-39 months), five (13%) patients have had a distant recurrence; there have been no local recurrences. Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, although technically challenging, can be carried out with reasonable operative times, a short length of stay, and minimal complication. Final oncologic validity is pending longer follow-up and a larger series.     

Minimally invasive esophageal resection and intrathoracic anastomosis for lower thoracic esophageal cancer with single position

There are various esophagectomy approaches for lower thoracic esophageal cancer, and the minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) approach shows the advantages of less discomfort, shorter length of stay and a faster recovery to baseline status than open approaches. The current study reports a case of lower thoracic esophageal cancer was treated using a single-position, minimally invasive surgical technique with laparoscopy and thoracoscopy. A 68-year-old man, whose gastroscopy identified the esophageal carcinoma, came to our medical center due to dysphagia for over 1 year. The patient underwent tumor radical resection and intrathoracic anastomosis by laparoscopy and thoracoscopy with single position. The patient has recovered well after the surgery.     

Combined thoracoscopic and laparoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy

With the improvement in thoracoscopic and laparoscopic surgery, thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy (TLE), a minimally invasive approach, has attracted increasing attention as an alternative to open three-field esophagectomy. From June 2012 to October 2013, 90 patients underwent laparoscopic and thoracoscopic resection of esophageal carcinoma in our department. The VATS esophagectomy technique described here is the approach currently employed in the department of thoracic surgery at Sichuan Provincial People’s Hospital of China.     

A prospective comparison of totally minimally invasive versus open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy

The majority of esophagectomies in Western parts of the world are performed by a transthoracic approach reflecting the prevalence of adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus or esophagogastric junction. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been reported in a variety of formats, but there are no series that directly compare totally minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic 2 stage esophagectomy (MIE‐2) with open Ivor Lewis (IVL). A prospective single‐center cohort study of patients undergoing elective MIE‐2 or IVL between January 2005 and November 2010 was performed. Short‐term clinicopathologic outcomes were recorded using validated systems. One hundred and six patients (median age 66, range 36–85, 88 M : 18 F) underwent two‐stage esophagectomy (53 MIE‐2 and 53 IVL). Patient demographics (age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, tumor characteristics, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and TNM stage) were comparable between the two groups. Outcomes for MIE‐2 and IVL were comparable for anastomotic leak rates (5 [9%] vs. 2 [4%], P= 0.241), resection margin clearance (R0) (43 [81%] vs. 38 [72%], P= 0.253), median lymph node yield (19 vs. 18, P= 0.584), and median length of stay (12 [range 7–91] vs. 12 [range 7–101] days), respectively. Blood loss was significantly less for MIE‐2 compared with IVL (median 300 [range 0–1250] mL vs. 400 [range 0–3000] mL, respectively, P= 0.021). MIE‐2 in this series of selected patients supports its efficacy, when performed by an experienced minimally invasive surgical team. A well‐designed multicenter trial addressing clinical effectiveness is now required.     

Minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy,a symptom assessment study

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is used with hope to decrease the morbidity associated with an open esophagectomy. Reflux and dumping syndromes are the most important functional complaints in patients after esophagectomy. This study compares the functional benefits of MIE with open esophagectomy. The study enrolled patients who underwent either minimally invasive or open esophagectomy for cancer between 2004 and 2009. No patients in the MIE group had a pyloroplasty or myotomy. Each patient in the MIE group was paired to a patient in the open esophagectomy group via propensity matching. Matching variables included age, race, gender, preoperative treatment, history of prior cancer, American Society of Anesthesiologists Risk Scale, performance status, clinical stage, body mass index, histology, level of anastomosis, and time elapsed since surgery. The patients were asked to answer 26 questions about their reflux and dumping using validated questionnaires. A total of 181 patients were included in the study. From this group, 44 pairs of patients were created and used for the analysis. The median follow‐up was 12.1 months for the MIE group and 18.3 months for the open group. The reflux score was slightly worse in the MIE group (5.5 versus 3.5, P= 0.021). There was no difference in the dumping symptoms between the two groups. The most common complaints seen in the dumping questionnaire in almost one‐third of all patients were early satiety, abdominal discomfort, nausea, and diarrhea. Of the patients, 77% were satisfied or very satisfied with their condition in the MIE group compared with 93% in the open group (P= 0.287). Reflux, dumping, and overall satisfaction after MIE without pyloroplasty are comparable with those obtained after open esophagectomy with a pyloric drainage procedure.     

Incidence and impact of postoperative atrial fibrillation after minimally invasive esophagectomy

Atrial fibrillation (AF) following open esophagectomy has been associated with increased rates of pulmonary and anastomotic complications, and mortality. This study seeks to evaluate effects of AF after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). A retrospective review of patients consecutively treated with MIE for esophageal carcinoma, dysplasia. and benign disease from November 2006 to November 2011 was performed. One hundred twenty‐one patients underwent MIE. Median age was 65 years (range 26–88) with 85% being male. Thirty‐eight (31.4%) patients developed AF postoperatively. Of these 38 patients, 7 (18.4%) had known AF preoperatively. Patients with postoperative AF were significantly older than those without postoperative AF (68.7 vs. 62.8 years, P = 0.008) and more likely to be male (94.7% vs. 80.7%, P = 0.04). Neoadjuvant chemoradiation showed a trend toward increased risk of AF (73.7% vs 56.6%, P = 0.07). Sixty‐day mortality was 2 of 38 (5.3%) in patients with AF and 4 of 83 (6.0%) in the no AF cohort (P = 1.00). The group with AF had increased length of hospitalization (13.4 days vs. 10.6 days P = 0.02). No significant differences in rates of pneumonia (31.6% vs. 21.7% P = 0.24), stricture (13.2% vs. 26.5% P = 0.10), or leak requiring return to operating room (13.2% vs. 8.4% P = 0.51) were noted between groups. We did not find an increased rate of AF in our MIE cohort compared with prior reported rates in open esophagectomy populations. AF did result in an increased length of stay but was not a predictor of other short‐term morbidities including anastomotic leak, pulmonary complications, stenosis, or 60‐day mortality.     

Laparoscopic and thoracoscopic esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis for middle or lower esophageal carcinoma

Thoracoscopic mobilization of esophagus and laparoscopic mobilization of stomach with cervical anastomosis is employed widely in minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal carcinoma. However, it is associated with high incidence of complications, including recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and anastomotic leak. This paper summarizes the key techniques in total laparoscopic and thoracoscopic esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis for MIE in 62 patients of middle or lower esophageal cancer between March 2012 and August 2013. Total laparoscopic and thoracoscopic esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis was performed to treat the middle or lower esophageal cancer. Laparoscopic and thoracoscopic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy was performed using a circular stapler (Johnson and Johnson) intrathoracically to staple esophagogastric anastomosis and reconstruct the digestive tract. In addition, we performed tension-relieving anastomotic suture and embedded with pedicled omental flap. Compared with the trans-orally inserted anvil (OrVil) approach, the technique reported here is safe, feasible and user-friendly. Total thoracoscopic intrathoracic anastomosis can be performed with a circular stapler (Johnson and Johnson).     

Updated experiences with minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

AIM: To update our experiences with minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.METHODS: 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).RESULTS: 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.CONCLUSION: 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.     

Minimally invasive esophagectomy: a teaching hospital's first year experience

SUMMARY.  Surgical resection of the esophagus remains the mainstay of treatment for esophageal cancer. However, esophagectomy is associated with significant morbidity and mortality in the postoperative period. We have recently altered our practice pattern to include minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) as the approach of choice in the hope of minimizing morbidity associated with this procedure. In this retrospective analysis, we compare outcomes of our first year performing MIE to the previous 3 years of open esophagectomy (OE) at a single teaching hospital. Sixty-five patients underwent esophagectomy between June 2002 and July 2006. Among these, 22 patients underwent MIE between June 2005 and July 2006 and 43 patients underwent OE. The two groups were comparable with regards to age, comorbidities and pathologic stage. The MIE group had less operative blood loss (178 mL vs. 356 mL), decreased respiratory complications requiring mechanical ventila-tion (5% vs. 23%), increased number of lymph nodes procured per procedure (15 vs. 8), and increased number of patients discharged within 10 days (72% vs. 28%) when compared to the OE group. No difference was identified in mortality, complications, or length of stay.     

Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer: impact on postoperative inflammatory and nutritional status

The purpose of this case–control study was to evaluate the impact of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer on surgical stress response and nutritional status. All 34 consecutive patients undergoing hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer at our surgical unit between 2008 and 2013 were retrospectively compared with 34 patients undergoing esophagectomy with open gastric tubulization (open), matched for neoadjuvant therapy, pathological stage, gender and age. Demographic data, tumor features and postoperative course (including quality of life and systemic inflammatory and nutritional status) were compared. Postoperative course was similar in terms of complication rate. Length of stay in intensive care unit was shorter in patients undergoing hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (P = 0.002). In the first postoperative day, patients undergoing hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy had lower C‐reactive protein levels (P = 0.001) and white cell blood count (P = 0.05), and higher albumin serum level (P = 0.001). In this group, albumin remained higher also at third (P = 0.06) and seventh (P = 0.008) postoperative day, and C‐reactive protein resulted lower at third post day (P = 0.04). Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy significantly improved the systemic inflammatory and catabolic response to surgical trauma, contributing to a shorter length of stay in intensive care unit.     

Totally minimally invasive Ivor‐Lewis esophagectomy with single‐utility incision video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery for treatment of mid‐lower esophageal cancer

The study aims to evaluate the safety and availability of totally minimally invasive Ivor‐Lewis esophagectomy (MIIE) with single‐utility incision video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery. Forty‐one patients with mid‐lower thoracic esophageal cancer were prospectively treated with totally MIIE. Two stages of laparoscopic‐thoracoscopic procedures were performed. The first 29 patients were treated with four‐port video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery (Group 1); the others were treated with single‐utility incision video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery (Group 2). Short‐term clinicopathological outcomes were examined. All patients had negative tumor margins and were pathologically staged from T1N0M0 to T3N2M0. Among Group 1, there was one conversion to open surgery. The mean duration of surgery was 268.4 ± 37.8 minutes, and mean blood loss was 207.2 ± 74.1 mL without significant differences between groups. The average thoracic or abdominal lymph node yield was 12.6 ± 7.1 or 6 ± 5.8, respectively. The median postoperative hospital stay was 7 days. No mortalities occurred. Minor morbidity complicated by late‐stage gastroparesis occurred in two patients (4.9%) after discharge. Major morbidities, including intestinal obstruction and anastomotic leakage, occurred in three patients (7.3%) after discharge. Among Group 2, the average operative duration was 275.4 ± 31.2 minutes, and the mean blood loss was 220 ± 94.9 mL. One patient developed late‐stage anastomotic leakage. The average thoracic or abdominal lymph node yield was 14.7 ± 8.8 and 6.3 ± 5.7, respectively. No statistically significant differences were identified between Group 1 and Group 2. MIIE with single‐utility incision video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery is feasible in patients with mid‐lower thoracic esophageal cancer without compromising the extent of surgical resection and perioperative outcomes.     

Results of the introduction of a minimally invasive esophagectomy program in a tertiary referral center

Background

Esophagectomy is accompanied by a high postoperative complication rate. Minimally invasive esophageal surgery appears to be a promising technique that might be associated with a lower pulmonary morbidity rate. The objective of this study was to describe the implementation of minimally invasive esophageal surgery in a tertiary referral center and to compare the results of our first series of minimally invasive esophagectomies (MIE) to conventional open esophagectomies.

Methods

MIE was implemented after several procedures had been proctored by a surgeon with extensive experience with MIE. Preoperative characteristics and the postoperative course of patients who underwent a transthoracic esophagectomy were prospectively registered. Morbidity and overall hospital stay were compared between minimally invasive and open resections performed in the same period.

Results

A total of 90 consecutive esophageal cancer patients underwent a transthoracic resection, 41 patients by means of a minimally invasive approach. Preoperative characteristics were comparable for both groups. The duration of surgery was longer in the MIE group (6.0 vs. 5.2 hours, P<0.001) and median blood loss was lower [100 vs. 500 mL (P<0.001)]. There was only a trend towards a shorter hospital stay in the MIE group (11 vs. 13 days, P=0.072), pulmonary complications occurred in 20% of patients in the MIE group vs. 31% in the open group (P=0.229). The overall complication rate was 51% in the MIE group vs. 63% in the open group, P=0.249.

Conclusions

Implementation of MIE in our center was successful and it appears to be a safe technique for patients with potentially curable esophageal carcinoma.KEY WORDS : Esophageal cancer, surgical technical, complications, thoracoscopy     

Use of efficient purse-string stapling technique for esophagogastric anastomosis in minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly accepted in the treatment of locoregional or advanced esophageal cancer. Laparoscopic-thoracoscopic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy has been proved to be effective in treating middle and distal esophageal cancer, however, intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis is technically complex. When using circular stapler for making intrathoracic anastomosis in MIE, both transoral and transthoracic methods are frequently used for delivering the anvil into the esophageal stump. Herein, we report a new method to construct a thoracoscopic esophagogastric anastomosis by using a circular stapler: efficient purse-string stapling technique (EST). This technique is easy to handle and especially good to be used in patients with distal esophageal cancer or expanded esophageal cavity.KEYWORDS : Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, esophageal cancer, esophagogastric anastomosis, efficient purse-string stapling technique (EST)     

Application of a modified McKeown procedure (thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization three‐incision esophagectomy) in esophageal cancer surgery: Initial experience with 30 cases

Early efforts with minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) were hybrid approaches. No conclusive benefit was seen with this approach compared with the standard open procedure. Total MIE has demonstrated its advantages in single institution series. The drawbacks of total MIE include the steep learning curve and the high cost of the disposable instrumentation. We sought to determine the feasibility of modifying the surgical technique involved in the hybrid approach in an effort to decrease the cost of the surgery without compromising the outcome. From December 2007 to September 2008, the modified McKeown procedure (thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization three‐incision esophagectomy) was performed in 30 cases. The median operative time was 225 minutes (range, 195 ?290 minutes) and the median average time of VATS was 70 minutes (range, 50 ?130 minutes). Median lymph node retrieval was 25.6 ± 4.8 nodes (15.1 ± 3.4 intrathoracic) per patient. The median postoperative hospital stay was 17.1 ± 6.3 days. There was no in‐hospital (30 days) mortality. Postoperative complications occurred in 9 patients (30%), including 2 (6.7%) pneumonia, 1 (3.3%) chylothorax, 1 (3.3%) delayed gastric emptying ,1 (3.3%) vocal cord palsy, 2 (6.7%) neck anastomotic leaks, and 2 (6.7%) arrhythmias. This procedure is technically feasible and safe with lower mortality and mobility. The short‐term surgical outcomes are comparable with most of the total MIE reports. Performing the gastric mobilization and spontaneous neck anastomosis first greatly facilitate and simplifies the VATS maneuver.     

A comparison of short-term outcomes between Ivor-Lewis and McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy

Background

Only few comparative studies have been reported on the outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with intrathoracic anastomosis (MIE Ivor-Lewis) and MIE with cervical anastomosis (MIE McKeown) for patients with mid and lower esophageal cancer. The objective of this study is to compare the safety, feasibility, and short-term outcomes between two groups.

Methods

Clinical and surgical data of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent either MIE Ivor-Lewis or MIE McKeown between January 2013 and October 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic characteristics, pathological data, operative procedures, and perioperative outcomes and survival in patients were compared between both groups.

Results

Of the 72 patients included in this retrospective analysis, 32 underwent MIE Ivor-Lewis and 40 underwent MIE McKeown. Demographics, pathologic data, inpatient mortality, and surgical morbidity in both cohorts were almost identical. A significant difference was observed in Pulmonary complication (18.8% vs. 42.5%, P=0.032), Anastomotic leakage (9.4% vs. 30%, P=0.032), Anastomotic stenosis (12.5% vs. 35%, P=0.028), recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) injury (6.3% vs. 22.5%, P=0.034) between MIE Ivor-Lewis and MIE McKeown groups; however, no difference in operative time (312.6±82.0 vs. 339.4±80.0, P=0.249), blood loss (246.3±82.4 vs. 272.9±136.3, P=0.443), lymph nodes harvested (19.3±8.1 vs. 20.2±7.2, P=0.655) and 90-day mortality (3.1% vs. 5%, P=0.692) was observed between two groups.

Conclusions

The procedure of MIE Ivor-Lewis for esophageal cancer possesses advantages in perioperative outcomes and less complications compared with MIE McKeown.     

Lymph node dissection in esophageal carcinoma: Minimally invasive esophagectomy vs open surgery

AIM: To compare lymph node dissection results of minimally invasive esophagectomy(MIE) and open surgery for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data from patients who underwent MIE or open surgery for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma from January 2011 to September 2014. Number of lymph nodes resected, positive lymph node(p N+) rate, lymph node sampling(LNS) rate and lymph node metastatic(LNM) rate were evaluated. R E S U LT S : A m o n g 4 4 7 p a t i e n t s i n c l u d e d, 1 2 3 underwent MIE and 324 underwent open surgery. The number of lymph nodes resected did not significantly differ between the MIE and open surgery groups(21.1 ± 4.3 vs 20.4 ± 3.8, respectively, P = 0.0944). The p N+ rate of stage T3 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in the open surgery group was higher than that in the MIE group(16.3% vs 11.4%, P = 0.031), but no differences was observed for stages T1 and T2 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The LNS rate at left para-recurrent laryngeal nerve(RLN) site was significantly higher for open surgery than for MIE(80.2% vs 43.9%, P 0.001), but no differences were noted at other sites. The LNM rate at left para-RLN site in the open surgery group was significantly higher than that in the MIE group, regardless of pathologic T stage. CONCLUSION: For stages T1 and T2 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, the lymph node dissection result after MIE was comparable to that achieved by open surgery. However, the efficacy of MIE in lymphadenectomy for stage T3 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, particularly at left para-RLN site, remains to be improved.     

Thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy with cervical manual anastomosis for esophageal cancer

Evidence on the benefits of minimally invasive approach over traditional open procedure in gastrointestinal surgery is continuing to accumulate. This is also the case for esophageal surgery.Although laparoscopic esophageal surgery was initially reserved for benign pathology, the technical development, increasing experience with laparoscopic and thoracoscopic techniques and the theoretical advantages of minimally invasive surgery have widened the scope of minimally invasive approach to esophageal cancer. The surgical treatment of esophageal cancer often requires extensive procedures and is therefore, considered one of the most challenging and invasive procedure of gastrointestinal surgery. While transhiatal and transthoracic esophagectomy are common approaches for esophageal resection, data regarding the combined thoracoscopic and laparoscopic approach to esophagectomy are limited. The minimally invasive technique of esophagectomy to be described consists of three phases: thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization and mediastinal lymphadenectomy followed by laparoscopic gastric mobilization, abdominal lymphadenectomy and gastric conduit formation and finally retrieval of the resection specimen followed by an esophagogastric anastomosis via a left cervical incision.     

Optimal surgical approach for esophageal cancer in the era of minimally invasive esophagectomy and neoadjuvant therapy

The optimal surgical technique for the potentially curative treatment of patients with esophageal cancer is still under debate. The transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) with limited lymphadenectomy mainly focuses on a decrease of postoperative morbidity and mortality by preventing a formal thoracotomy. The transthoracic esophagectomy (TTE) with extended two‐field lymphadenectomy attempts to improve the radicality of the resection and thus to increase locoregional tumor control, but is associated with increased postoperative morbidity. The recent introduction of different minimally invasive techniques probably decreases postoperative morbidity following TTE, with reduction of especially pulmonary complications, but high‐quality evidence is still limited. It is widely agreed that extended lymphadenectomy as performed during TTE provides the benefit of more accurate staging, but its effect on improvement of survival is still debated. The literature on this topic is contradictory and the choice of surgical approach is primarily driven by personal opinions and institutional preferences. Moreover, the available evidence is mainly based on patients who underwent surgery alone without neoadjuvant therapy. Results of recent studies suggest that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy abolishes any possibly positive effect of extended lymphadenectomy as performed during TTE on survival, but this effect should be confirmed in future research. This review gives an overview and reflects the authors' personal view on the role of TTE and THE in the treatment of potentially curative treatment of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer in the era of minimally invasive esophagectomy and neoadjuvant treatment and outlines future research perspectives.