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.     

Robotic-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy

Background Despite its reduced aggressiveness and excellent results obtained in certain diseases, minimally invasive surgery did not manage to significantly lower the risks of esophageal resections. Further advances in technology led to the creation of robotic systems with their unique maneuverability of the instruments and exceptional view on the operative field, thus setting the prerequisites for performance in complex surgical procedures and offering new possibilities to a disease notorious for its dismal prognosis.Materials and methods The robotic-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy technique was used in a patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the lower esophagus that had high medical risk for surgical therapy.Results Esophageal resection and reconstruction were possible through a robotic-assisted minimally invasive transhiatal approach. There were no intraoperative incidents, blood loss was minimal, and lymph node dissection and removal was possible during the procedure. Early ambulation and conservative treatment of the mild complications that occurred offered a favorable postoperative outcome.Conclusion The robotic-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy technique is feasible and safe. Complex procedures become less technically demanding with the help of the robotic system and, thus, the minimally invasive approach can be offered for the benefit of selected patients. Further studies are required to confirm these observations and to establish the role of this procedure in the future.     

Thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy

Esophagectomy is both complex and challenging, and it may be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. With improvements in instrumentation and increasing experience with laparoscopic and thoracoscopic techniques, minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy are being explored to determine feasibility, results, and potential advantages. Most of this experience has been with case studies or small series, with many surgeons using thoracoscopy in combination with standard laparotomy. Many of the patients have been carefully selected for these procedures because they have small tumors or high-grade dysplasia. Our technique for esophagectomy has evolved from a laparoscopic transhiatal approach to a combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approach. Our experience with this procedure has increased, and now we offer this approach to the majority of patients with resectable cancers. We review our operative technique and the results of surgery in our first 50 patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer or high-grade dysplasia.     

The technique of laparoscopic-thoracoscopic esophageal resection for esophageal cancer--first experiences

Esophageal resection for carcinoma is still associated with high mortality and morbidity. Minimally invasive techniques are regarded to reduce operative trauma. However, to date only few studies on minimally invasive esophageal resection have been published. We describe in detail the technique of combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic esophageal resection with gastric-pull-up and conventional open cervical anastomosis for esophageal squamous carcinoma. Prone positioning of the patient with bilateral lung ventilation was used during the thoracoscopic part of the operation. Our first experiences in 5 patients confirm the feasibility of the technique. We did not observe any surgical related adverse incidences and found the typically advantages of minimally invasive surgery, such as early mobility, less pain and a comfortable cosmetic result in our patients. Although the number of procedures is to low to decide the value of minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancer, we think it could be a promising technology to reduce mortality and morbidity for esophageal resection.     

Transhiatal esophageal resection for corrosive injury

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the feasibility and safety of transhiatal approach for resection of corrosively scarred esophagus. BACKGROUND SUMMARY DATA: The unrelenting corrosive strictures of esophagus merit esophageal substitution. Because of the risk of complications in the retained esophagus, such as malignancy, mucocele, gastroesophageal reflux, and bleeding, esophageal resection is deemed necessary. Transthoracic approach for esophageal resection is considered safe. The safety and feasibility of transhiatal resection of the esophagus is not established in corrosive injury of the esophagus. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Transhiatal approach was used for resection of the scarred esophagus for all patients between January 1986 and December 2001. The intraoperative complications, indications for adding thoracotomy, and postoperative outcome were studied in 51 patients. Follow-up period varied from minimum of 6 months to 15 years. RESULTS: Esophageal resection was achieved in 49 of 51 patients whereas thoracotomy was added in 2 patients. In 1 of the patients tracheal injury occurred whereas in other patient there were dense adhesions between tracheal membrane and esophagus. Gastric tube was used for esophageal substitution in 40 (78.4%) patients whereas colon was transplanted in 11 (21.6%) patients. Colon was used only when stomach was not available. One patient (1.9%) had tracheal membrane injury whereas 4 patients (7.8%) had recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. One patient each had thoracic duct injury and intrathoracic gastric tube leak. There was no operative mortality. Anastomotic complications like leak were present in 19.6% and stricture in 58.8% patients. All the patients were able to resume their normal duties and swallow normal food within 6 months of the surgery. CONCLUSION: One-stage transhiatal esophageal resection and reconstruction could be safely used for the extirpation of scarred esophagus. Use of gastric conduit was technically simple, quicker, and offered good functional outcome. Postoperative anastomotic stricture amenable to dilatations was the commonest complication.     

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.     

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.     

Laparoscopically assisted transhiatal resection for malignancies of the distal esophagus

Background Resection of the esophagus remains the only curative therapy for esophageal cancer. Conventional resections are right-side thoracotomy in combination with laparotomy, gastric tube creation, and the transhiatal approach according to Orringer. This study evaluated laparoscopically assisted transhiatal esophagus resection, which offers perfect visualization of the esophagus during mediastinal dissection without the necessity of a thoracotomy.Methods In this study, 25 laparoscopically assisted transhiatal esophagus resections were compared with a historical control group consisting of 20 open transhiatal esophagus resections.Results Nine laparoscopically assisted resections (36%) were converted to open procedures. The operating time was longer in the laparoscopically assisted group (300 vs 257 min; p < 0.05), but laparoscopically assisted esophagus resection was associated with less blood loss (600 vs 900 ml; p < 0.05) and shorter intensive care unit stay (1 vs 2 days; p < 0.05). There were no differences in morbidity, mortality, and hosptital stay. During a shorter follow-up time for the laparoscopic group (17 vs 54 months), 11 patients (44%) in the laparoscopically assisted group and 10 (50%) patients in the open group had recurrence of the disease.Conclusions Laparoscopically assisted transhiatal esophagus resection is a safe procedure with important advantages, as compared with the open procedure, such as less blood loss and shorter intensive care unit stay. At this point, the oncologic consequences are not clear.     

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 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.     

Minimally invasive esophagectomy: the evolution and technique of minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancer

Beginning with the widespread introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in late 1989, minimally invasive surgical technique has been refined in conjunction with the development of advanced instrumentation and have subsequently been applied to increasingly complicated disease processes. Esophageal surgeons have increasingly incorporated minimally invasive surgery into their practice since the first laparoscopic fundoplication was described by Dallemagne et al. in 1991. Esophagectomy is associated with significant morbidity and mortality even in highly experienced centers. Many esophageal surgeons have had a great deal of interest in minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), which has the potential advantages of being a less traumatic procedure with a resultant improvement in postoperative convalescence and fewer wound and cardiopulmonary complications compared to the open approaches. Throughout the 1990s, as confidence with laparoscopic surgery of the esophagogastric junction grew, MIE was initially attempted with hybrid operations combining traditional open surgery with minimally invasive approaches. Subsequently, a totally laparoscopic transhiatal approach was described; however, this approach was perceived to be very challenging and has not gained widespread acceptance. Approaches used at present depend on cancer stage, cancer location, body habitus, and pulmonary function. For localized cancer (T1N0) or HGD, we prefer laparoscopic inversion esophagectomy (retrograde or antigrade). This approach may also be used for patients at high risk for thoracotomy. For locally advanced cancer in the middle third of the esophagus or for proximal third esophageal cancer, we prefer 3-field MIE (abdomen, and chest with neck anastomosis). For locally advanced cancer in the distal esophagus, especially in patients with a short thick neck, we prefer thoracoscopic-laparoscopic (2-field) esophagectomy (TLE).     

Extent of lymphnode dissection with minimally invasive esophageal resection

Esophageal resection is still today associated with a high morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive procedures show a significantly lower rate of such complications and therefore might also be associated with a lower surgical risk. However, publications till date contain little or no data on the extent of lymph node dissection. The aim of our study was to evaluate the morbidity and mortality rate of minimally invasive esophageal resection. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In the last two years, we carried out 25 minimally invasive esophageal resections on five women and 20 men with a median age of 63 years (range 41-74 years). All data were accrued prospectively. RESULTS: Nine patients were operated upon transhiatally and 12 combined laparocopic-thoracoscopic. On four patients, a thoracotomy was necessary. The average surgical time for the transhiatal approach was calculated at 164 minutes (range 150-180 min) and for the combined laparoscopic-thoracoscopic procedure 285 minutes (240-360 min). The thoracoscopic esophageal resection itself lasted 105 minutes on average; the last five resections each lasting 70 minutes. A median of 24,5 lymph nodes (19-26) was calculated in the laparoscopic-thoracoscopic technique. The transhiatal procedure revealed a median of 14 lymph nodes (12-17). Postoperatively, we had three cases of anastomotic and two cases of bronchial leakages, most probably associated with the use of monopolar current; complications no longer seen since usage of the HARMONIC ACE for surgical preparation. There was no 30 day letality. CONCLUSION: Our experience with 25 successful minimally invasive esophageal resections shows that with increasing experience and better surgical equipment, the extent of lymph node dissection does not differ from open procedure.     

Laparoscopic Resection of an Esophageal Epiphrenic Diverticulum

Epiphrenic diverticulum of the esophagus is an uncommon disease. In the light of the benefits of minimally invasive treatment of such a functional disorder, we used the laparoscopic approach for resection of an epiphrenic diverticulum. We found that laparoscopic repair of symptomatic esophageal epiphrenic diverticula is a safe and effective technique with minimal postoperative pain and morbidity. It should be considered as an alternative to the traditional transthoracic approach, and may become the standard technique.     

Laparoscopic resection of an esophageal epiphrenic diverticulum

Epiphrenic diverticulum of the esophagus is an uncommon disease. In the light of the benefits of minimally invasive treatment of such a functional disorder, we used the laparoscopic approach for resection of an epiphrenic diverticulum. We found that laparoscopic repair of symptomatic esophageal epiphrenic diverticula is a safe and effective technique with minimal postoperative pain and morbidity. It should be considered as an alternative to the traditional transthoracic approach, and may become the standard technique.     

Thoracic esophageal rupture during sleeve gastrectomy: a case report with successful laparoscopic transhiatal repair

While laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is one of the most common bariatric procedures for morbid obesity, the rate of complications is decreasing. These complications include hemorrhage and gastric leak that are considered life threatening. The esophageal complications in the form of perforation or rupture during LSG are rare and mainly because of iatrogenic reasons, such as blind, unguided instrumentation, which include the bougie (commonly used for gastric calibration during LSG). These complications are potential life threatening. The detection and management of these complications can affect the outcome and minimize the morbidity and avoid the incidence of mortality. We report a case of 38-year-old female, with a body mass index of 42 with iatrogenic rupture of distal and thoracic part of esophagus for >10-cm length during LSG and the immediate full laparoscopic transhiatal primary repair.     

Anesthesiological hazards during laparoscopic transhiatal esophageal resection: a case control study of the laparoscopic-assisted vs the conventional approach

Background Interest for minimal invasive approach of esophagus resection is increasing. Today, a minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy is possible and is accepted widespread. Since cardiopulmonary changes during laparoscopic dissection of the mediastinum has not been studied yet we assessed the anesthesiological consequences of pneumothorax during laparoscopic mediastinal dissection.Methods In this case control study, 25 laparoscopically assisted transhiatal espohagus resections were compared with a control group consisting of 20 open transhiatal esophagus resections. Patient characteristics and intraoperative haemodynamic, respiratory, and ventilatory parameters were assessed.Results The laparoscopic assisted procedure was performed successfully in 12 of the 20 patients. The duration of the laparoscopic assisted procedure, compared to the open group was significantly longer (p<0.05). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in the laparoscopic group (p<0.05). Mediastinal dissection resulted in entry of the pleura in 84% of the open and 93% of the laparoscopic assisted procedure. Carbondioxide pneumothorax resulted in increased end-tidal CO₂ and airway pressure levels and decreased lunng compliance. Airway pressure showed a significant difference between the groups (p<0.05). Hemodynamic parameters did not differ between groups significantly. There were no differences in postoperative cardiopulmonary complications.Conclusions Laparoscopic assisted transhiatal esophagectomy is a safe procedure and has no increased risk of postoperative cardiopulmonary complications compared to thr conventional approach. The anesthesiologist and the surgeon must be aware of the potential risk of pleural injury to manage cardiopulmonary compromises and minimize complications.     

Esophagectomy and laparoscopic gastric mobilization with minilaparotomy for tubulization and esophageal replacement

Several alternatives for esophageal resection and replacement with laparoscopic, thoracoscopic, video-assisted, or completely endoscopic techniques have been reported. All of these have advantages and disadvantages according to the indications, instrumental requirements, cost, and feasibility. Here we report a new alternative procedure, performing the gastric mobilization and transhiatal esophageal dissection by laparoscopic approach and preparation of the gastric tube through a midline 5-cm minilaparotomy. In this manner we handled the GIA staplers outside of the abdomen, avoiding prolongation of the operating time and the excessive increase of the cost of the procedure. Further, this procedure may help to prevent the risk of postoperative leak of the stapler suture line by reinforcing this suture with a invaginating continuous manual 3-0 reabsorbable suture (Monocryl, Johnson & Johnson, Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.). A left anterolateral cervicotomy was done to complete the dissection of the esophagus, and the gastric tube was ascended through a retrosternal tunnel to the neck for esophagogastroanastomosis. We operated on a 73-year-old woman, who had a T1 squamous carcinoma of middle third of the esophagus. The operation was performed with no intraoperative complications as a result of the procedure. After surgery, pneumonia with a pleural effusion developed and was evacuated. The patient was discharged from the hospital with no symptoms. We believe that this is a safe, inexpensive, and easy procedure for the transhiatal laparoscopic esophagectomy and its replacement by a gastric tube.     

Minimally invasive therapy for benign tumors of the distal third of the esophagus--a single institute's experience

INTRODUCTION: Traditionally, the treatment of benign esophageal tumors is enucleation achieved via a thoracotomy. Since 1992, many reports of thoracoscopic and laparoscopic approaches have been published. In this paper, we present a retrospective study of 18 patients with benign distal esophageal tumors who underwent minimally invasive procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 18 patients were treated in our institute form 1994 to 2006. Tumors of the middle third were approached thoracoscopically, and laparoscopic transhiatal enucleation was performed for tumors of the lower third. One patient had associated achalasia cardia, for which a cardiomyotomy with Toupet fundoplication was also performed, and another patient underwent an esophagectomy for a large tumor. RESULTS: There were 12 males and 6 females and the average age was 59 years. The majority of the tumors were in the lower third, and the most common type of tumor was leiomyoma. Postoperative complications were recorded. DISCUSSION: Leiomyomas are the most common benign tumors and are located frequently in the middle and lower third. Based on our experience, we feel that lower esophageal tumors are best approached by a laparoscopic transhiatal route and midesophageal tumors by a right thoracoscopic approach. Conclusions: Minimally invasive surgery for benign esophageal tumors is ideal, reducing the morbidity of conventional methods.     

The rationale for esophagectomy as the optimal therapy for Barrett''s esophagus with high-grade dysplasia.

OBJECTIVE: The authors determined the incidence of invasive adenocarcinoma after esophagectomy in patients endoscopically diagnosed as having Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Barrett's esophagus is a well-recognized premalignant condition. There is controversy with regard to the optimal treatment of high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus. Recognizing the morbidity and mortality associated with esophagectomy, some recommend a selective approach, reserving esophagectomy only for evidence of invasive cancer identified through endoscopic surveillance. Other advocate esophagectomy for all suitable operative candidates. METHODS: The authors reviewed their experience between 1985 and 1995 with 11 patients with high-grade dysplasia arising in Barrett's esophagus diagnosed by endoscopic biopsy and treated by esophagectomy. RESULTS: All patients were white men ranging in age from 47 to 70 years. Ten patients underwent esophagectomy by the Ivor Lewis technique; one had a transhiatal resection. Eight patients (73%) had invasive adenocarcinoma identified after esophagectomy; two (18%) had positive lymph nodes; one required a prolonged hospital stay for an anastomotic leak; two (18%) temporarily suffered delayed gastric emptying. The authors' review identified 85 additional patients previously reported during the same period. Including the current series, 39 patients (41%) had invasive adenocarcinoma identified in the resected specimen. A preponderance of early, potentially curable carcinomas are characteristically found in these patients. CONCLUSION: A high incidence of endoscopically undetected invasive carcinoma strongly supports esophagectomy as the preferred approach for suitable operative candidates with high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus.