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).     

Combined laparoscopic-thoracoscopic esophagectomy and intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomsis

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 112 patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma and gastro-esophageal anastomosis in right thoracic cavity from October 2011 to June 2013. First, the gastric tube was created with the aid of linear stapling device by removing the stomach and dissecting lymph nodes under laparoscopy and making a 3-4 cm incision through the subxiphoid area in the upper abdomen. Second, the thoracic esophagus and lymph nodes were dissected during thoracoscopic procedure. Gastric tube was inserted into the chest cavity and placed in the posterior mediastinum. The thoracic gastro-esophageal anastomosis was stapled with a circular stapler. Combined laparoscopic-thoracoscopic esophagectomy and intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis is technically feasible and safe, with minimized trauma, less operative blood loss and quick recovery.KEYWORDS : Laparoscopic, thoracoscopic, esophagectomy, esophagogastric anastomosis, esophageal carcinoma     

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 esophagectomy: experience,technique and cautions

We described a 59-year-old female, who came to our institute with the diagnosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The preoperative clinical diagnosis was stage II esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The three-stage minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis, was performed in this case. The lateral-prone decubitus position and Harmonic scalpel facilitate the operation.KEYWORDS : Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), thoracoscopic, laparoscopic     

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy is equivalent to thoracoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy

The use of the surgical robot has been increasing in thoracic surgery. Its three-dimensional view and instruments with surgical wrists may provide advantages over traditional thoracoscopic techniques. Our initial experience with thoracoscopic robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal cancer was compared with our traditional thoracoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) approach for esophageal cancer. A retrospective review of a prospective database was performed. From July 2008 to October 2009, 43 patients underwent MIE resection. Patients who had benign disease and intrathoracic anastomosis were excluded. Results are presented as mean ± SD. Significance was set as P < 0.05. Eleven patients who underwent RAMIE and 26 who underwent MIE were included in the cohort. No differences in age, sex, race, body mass index, or preoperative radiotherapy or chemotherapy between the groups were observed. No significant differences in operative time, blood loss, number of resected lymph nodes, postoperative complications, days of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit stay, or length of hospital stay were also observed. In this short-term study, RAMIE was found to be equivalent to thoracoscopic MIE and did not offer clear advantages.     

The use of circular stapler for cervical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy: surgical technique and early postoperative outcome

Stapled esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy is considered to be superior to traditional handsewn techniques. Linear staplers are usually used. The aim of this study is to evaluate early postoperative results of circular stapler in cervical esophagogastric anastomosis. Records of all patients who underwent esophagectomy during the years 2003–2008 were reviewed. Patients that underwent transthoracic esophagectomy, colon transposition, or linear stapler anastomosis were excluded. Esophagogastric anastomosis was done either handsewn or using circular stapler. Patients underwent either pyloromyotomy, pyloroplasty, or no pyloric intervention. Postoperative leakage was diagnosed either clinically or radiologically. The end-point of this study was the incidence of anastomotic leak in the immediate postoperative period. Eighty-two patients (average age 66 years, male/female, 52/30) met the inclusion criteria. In 30 patients, the anastomosis was handsewn, and in 52 patients, it was done using a circular stapler. Overall operative mortality rate was 4.8% (four patients because of pulmonary or cardiac complications). Anastomotic leak occurred in five ( n  = 5, 16.6%) patients in the handsewn group and eight ( n  = 7, 13.4%) patients in the circular stapler group. Pyloric manipulation had no significant effect over the leakage rate. Routine upper-gastrointestinal (GI) series done on the fifth or sixth postoperative day did not reveal any of the leaks. Cervical esophagogastric anastomosis using an end-to-side circular stapler is feasible and safe, and has comparable outcomes to handsewn anastomosis in regard of leakage rates or other major surgical or general complications. Postoperative GI series seems to be a poor diagnostic tool for anastomotic leakage and could be omitted as a routine study for occult anastomotic leak.     

Minimally invasive esophagectomy—left neck anastomosis

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is supplementary to open surgery in the thoracic surgery. A 65-year-old male was identified with middle thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma by gastroscopy. In preoperative examinations, neither obvious abnormality nor distant metastasis was noted, and he could tolerate the esophagectomy according to his heart and lung function tests. Chest computed tomography (CT) and endoscopic ultrasonography showed no visible swollen lymph node in the mediastinum. The cTNM classification was T2N0M0. Therefore, MIE was performed. The patient recovered well after the surgery.KEYWORDS : Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), esophagectomy, thoracoscope, laparoscope     

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.     

The triple-stapled colonic anastomosis

This study reports the preliminary results of a new totally stapled end-to-end colonic anastomosis in 11 dogs. This "triple-stapled" end-to-end anastomosis was performed with one circular staple line and two linear staple lines, eliminating the need for a colotomy or purse-string suture. The fact that the anvil and anvil stem of a new circular stapling device (Premium EEA) can be detached from the frame of the instrument allows the anvil stem to be brought out through the proximal linear stapled colon. The trocar mounted on the main stem of the circular stapler allows the stem of the main device to be brought out through the distal staple line. Thus, a totally stapled colonic anastomosis is created after mating the anvil stem and main stem of the instrument. The new anastomosis was evaluated radiographically and at necropsy. The use of this technique resulted in no clinically detectable leaks, suggesting that it may facilitate the performance of anterior resections in humans.     

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.     

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.     

经直肠标本取出式3D腹腔镜低位直肠癌前切除术远切端两种处理方式对比研究

目的探讨直肠癌经肛门直肠标本取出式3D腹腔镜低位直肠前切除术远切端两种处理方式对临床结果的影响。 方法回顾性分析同济大学附属东方医院2016年1月至2018年3月接受经直肠标本取出式3D腹腔镜低位直肠癌前切除术患者40例的临床资料,按照远切端处理不同方式分为2组：（1）经直肠标本取出（双吻合器法）组29例：经肛门直肠取出根治标本,再以直线切割关闭器切断并关闭远端直肠,采用传统双吻合器法吻合;（2）经直肠标本取出（单吻合器法）组11例：经肛门直肠取出根治标本,直肠残端以倒刺线全层荷包缝合关闭,行单吻合器直肠结肠端端吻合。两组均行预防性末端回肠造口术。分析比较两组术中（手术时间、出血量）、术后指标（肛门排气时间、住院时间、术后进食流质时间）,并观察治疗期两组相关并发症。采用电话随访或调查的形式,对末端造口回纳术后1年以上患者采用Wexner失禁评分评估术后肛门括约肌功能。 结果两组年龄、性别、BMI指数、肿瘤浸润深度、手术时间、术中出血量、肛门排气时间、进食流质时间、住院时间、并发症均无明显差异（P>0.05）;根据WIS评分,随访时间超过1年的26例患者中,20例（76.9%）患者术后肛门功能良好（WIS评分≤10分）,无严重肛门失禁患者。 结论经肛门直肠标本取出式3D腹腔镜低位直肠前切除术中,采用单吻合器或双吻合器处理方式的临床效果无明显差异。     

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     

Preventing and localizing esophagogastric anastomosis leakage by sleeve-wrapping of the pedicled omentum

AIM:To develop a technique of sleeve-wrapping thepedicled omentum around the esophagogastric anastomosis for preventing and localizing leakage.METHODS:This study includes data from 86 patientswho were diagnosed with esophageal cancer and underwent the technique of sleeve-wrapping the pedicledomentum around esophagogastric anastomosis afteresophagectomy between November 2011 and July 2013.The early complications that occurred during follow-upwere analyzed.RESULTS:Postoperative complications included pulmonary complications(13/86;15.1%)and abdominal orthoracic wound infection(3/86;3.5%).Complicationsthat occurred during follow-up included one case ofanastomosis leakage(limited by omentum;1.2%)andfive case of anastomosis stricture(5.8%).No deathsoccurred.All complications were resolved through traditional treatment.No additional surgery was needed.CONCLUSION:Sleeve-wrapping of the pedicled omentum around esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy is safe and effective for preventing and localizing anastomosis leakage without increasing anastomosis stricture.     

Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer after distal gastrectomy

We report the use of gastric remnant for esophageal substitution after distal gastrectomy in a 53-year-old man with esophageal cancer. This patient had a 4-month history of progressive dysphagia for solid food. An upper gastrointestinal endoscopy showed a 7.0 cm bulge tumor in the middle-lower esophagus, wherein the upper margin was located 28 cm from the dental arcade. Computed tomography (CT) of the chest revealed wall thickening in the middle-lower esophagus. In this case, radical en bloc esophagectomy with a two-field lymph node dissection was performed in the upper abdomen and mediastinum via a posterolateral right thoracotomy through the fifth intercostal space. Esophagogastric anastomosis was performed mechanically in the apex of the chest using a circular stapler. The gastric remnant was used for reconstruction of the esophago-gastrostomy and placed in the right thoracic cavity. The patient was discharged on the 12th postoperative day without complications. The gastric remnant may be used for reconstruction in patients with esophageal cancer as a substitute organ after distal gastrectomy.     

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.     

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.     

New method for jejunal pouch interposition reconstruction after distal gastrectomy

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Recently pouch reconstruction has been reported to improve quality of life and functional results after surgery for gastric cancer. Although jejunal pouch reconstruction after distal gastrectomy has favorable results for patients' quality of life, it is complicated and takes a long time to complete. We developed a new technique using a linear stapling device to avoid this problem. METHODOLOGY: The duodenum and the jejunum are simultaneously divided with a 100-mm linear stapler 0.5 cm distal to the pyrolus ring and 20 cm distal to the ligament of Treitz, respectively. A 100-mm linear stapler is introduced into two approximated segments of the jejunum through two small stab wounds 10 cm and 15 cm distal to the stump, respectively, and side-to-side anastomosis is performed along the antimesenteric borders. The anterior wall of the pouch is cut along the prospective line of anastomosis with the gastric remnant. The anterior wall of the stomach is cut along the planned suture line having a length similar to that of the pouch. The posterior walls of the stomach and the jejunal pouch are placed back-to-back on the planned anastomotic line. End-to-end posterior anastomosis between the gastric remnant and the jejunal pouch is simultaneously performed with gastrectomy using a 100-mm linear stapler. End-to-end anterior anastomosis is created by hand. RESULTS: This technique has been used in 4 patients, and there have been no complications related to the pouch or anastomoses. Mean operative time was 255 +/- 37 min (range: 205-290 min). CONCLUSIONS: Shortening of operative time can be attributed to adoption of end-to-end posterior anastomosis between the stomach and the jejunal pouch using the linear stapling device simultaneously with gastrectomy.     

Minimally invasive esophagectomy: evaluation of mediastinal lymphadenectomy for T1b thoracic esophageal cancer

Background  

Patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) may benefit from lower respiratory complications and total morbidity compared with those undergoing open transthoracic esophagectomy (OTE) according to a recent meta-analysis. Local recurrence rates after MIE need to be determined for an assessment of complete resection. The aim of this study was to investigate whether MIE is effective for submucosal (T1b) esophageal cancer in terms of survival and morbidity.     

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.