Extended lower paratracheal lymph node resection during esophagectomy for cancer - safety and necessity.

BACKGROUND: The ideal extent of lymphadenectomy (LAD) in esophageal oncological surgery is debated. There is no evidence for improved survival after standardized paratracheal lymph node resection performing oncological esophagectomy. Lymph nodes from the lower paratracheal station are not standardly resected during 2-field Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of lower paratracheal lymph node (LPL) resection on perioperative outcome during esophagectomy for cancer and analyze its relevance. METHODS: Retrospectively, we identified 200 consecutive patients operated in our center for esophageal cancer from January 2017 - December 2019. Patients with and without lower paratracheal LAD were compared regarding demographic data, tumor characteristics, operative details, postoperative complications, tumor recurrence and overall survival. RESULTS: 103 out of 200 patients received lower paratracheal lymph node resection. On average, five lymph nodes were resected in the paratracheal region and cancer infiltration was found in two patients. Those two patients suffered from neuroendocrine carcinoma and melanoma respectively. Cases with lower paratracheal lymph node yield had significantly less overall complicated procedures (p = 0.026). Regarding overall survival and recurrence rate no significant difference could be detected between both groups (p = 0.168 and 0.371 respectively). CONCLUSION: The resection of lower paratracheal lymph nodes during esophagectomy remains debatable for distal squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Tumor infiltration was only found in rare cancer entities. Since resection can be performed safely, we recommend LPL resection on demand.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma, a randomized controlled trial (ROBOT-2 trial).

BACKGROUND: For patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction, radical esophagectomy with 2-field lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of the multimodality treatment with curative intent. Both conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) were shown to be superior compared to open transthoracic esophagectomy considering postoperative complications. However, no randomized comparison exists between MIE and RAMIE in the Western World for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven multicenter randomized controlled parallel-group superiority trial. All adult patients (age ≥ 18 and ≤ 90 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3, M0) esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction and with European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 will be assessed for eligibility and included after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 218) with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction are randomized to either RAMIE (n = 109) or MIE (n = 109). The primary outcome of this study is the total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes specified per lymph node station. CONCLUSION: This is the first randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAMIE to MIE as surgical treatment for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction in the Western World. The hypothesis of the proposed study is that RAMIE will result in a higher abdominal and mediastinal lymph node yield specified per station compared to conventional MIE. Short-term results and the primary endpoint (total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes per lymph node station) will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient within this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04306458 . Registered 13th March 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04306458; Date of first enrolment 18.01.2021; Target sample size 218; Recruitment status: Recruiting; Protocol version 2; Issue date 10.03.2020; Rev. 02.02.2021; Authors ET, PCvdS, PPG.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer: a propensity-matched analysis.

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) is increasingly being applied as treatment for esophageal cancer. In this study, the results of 50 RAMIE procedures were compared with 50 conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) operations, which had been the standard treatment for esophageal cancer prior to the robotic era. Between April 2016 and March 2018, data of 100 consecutive patients with esophageal carcinoma undergoing modified Ivor Lewis esophagectomy were prospectively collected. All operations were performed by the same surgeon using an identical intrathoracic anastomotic reconstruction technique with the same perioperative management and pain control regimen. Intra-operative and postoperative complications were graded according to definitions stated by the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group. Data analysis was carried out with and without propensity score matching. Baseline characteristics did not show significant differences between the RAMIE and MIE group. Propensity score matching of the initial group of 100 patients resulted in two equal groups of 40 patients for each surgical approach. In the RAMIE group, the median total lymph node yield was 27 (range 13-84) compared to 23 in the MIE group (range 11-48), P = 0.053. Median intensive care unit (ICU) stay was 1 day (range 1-43) in the RAMIE group compared to 2 days (range 1-17) in the MIE group (P = 0.029). The incidence of postoperative complications was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.581). In this propensity-matched study comparing RAMIE to MIE, ICU stay was significantly shorter in the RAMIE group. There was a trend in improved lymphadenectomy in RAMIE.

Change from Hybrid to Fully Minimally Invasive and Robotic Esophagectomy is Possible without Compromises.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of esophageal carcinoma is increasing in the western world, and esophageal resection is the essential therapy. Several studies report advantages of minimally invasive esophagectomies (MIEs) versus conventional open procedures (OPs). The benefits of the use of fully MIE or robot-assisted MIE (RAMIE) compared with the hybrid approaches (laparoscopic gastric preparation and open transthoracic esophagectomy) remain unclear. METHODS: Between July 2015 and August 2017, the data of 75 patients with esophageal carcinoma were prospectively registered. Of the 75 patients, 25 treated with a hybrid MIE (hybrid), 25 with total MIE (MIE), and 25 with RAMIE. All patients were operated by the same specialized surgeon in our center with an identical anastomotic technique (circular stapler). RESULTS: The overall 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 0 and 1.33% (1/75), respectively. Total hospital stay (p = 0.262), intensive care unit stay (p = 0.079), number of resected lymph nodes (p = 0.863), and R status (p = 0.132) did not differ statistically between the groups. However, pneumonia and wound infections occurred significantly and more frequently in the hybrid group compared with the minimally invasive groups (MIE and RAMIE) (p = 0.046 and p = 0.003, respectively). CONCLUSION: Comparable results regarding morbidity and short-term outcome could be achieved in the MIE and RAMIE groups compared with the hybrid group. The data indicate that the learning curve is low in surgeons changing the technique form hybrid esophagectomy to fully MIE. Additionally, the total minimally invasive approaches seem to be associated with a low incidence of complications such as pneumonia and wound infections.

Preoperative endoscopic pyloric balloon dilatation decreases the rate of delayed gastric emptying after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.

Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy occurs postoperatively in up to 50% of the patients. This pyloric dysfunction can lead to severe secondary complications postoperatively such as early aspiration, pneumonia or may even have an impact on anastomotic healing and therefore leakage. Early detection of DGE is essential to prevent further complications. The common treatment postoperatively is endoscopic pyloric balloon dilatation (EPBD) after symptoms already occurred. In our work, we analyzed patients who received a preoperative EPBD during the routine restaging endoscopy and compared those patients to a control group to analyze if preoperative EPBD may prevent postoperative DGE and secondary additional complications. We performed a single-center retrospective analysis of 115 patients who received an Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy by the same surgeon between June 2015 and October 2017. Out of these 115 patients, 91 (79.1%) patients received EPBD preoperatively during the staging/restaging endoscopy (PDG, pyloric dilatation group). In 24 (20.9%) patients, preoperative EPBD was not performed due to stenotic esophageal tumors or logistic reasons (NDG, non-pyloric dilatation group). Data of the PDG and NDG group were compared regarding the rate of postoperative DGE as well as DGE and EPBD related complications. In total, 21 (18.3%) patients developed pyloric dysfunction requiring a total of 27 EPBD during follow-up. There were 12 (13.2%) patients in the PDG and 9 (37.5%) patients in the NDG (p = 0.014), respectively. DGE-related complications such as anastomotic leaks (p = 0.466), pulmonary complications (p = 0.466) and longer median hospital stay (p = 0.685) were more frequent in the NDG group; however this difference did not reach statistical significance. The success rate for postoperative EPBD with 20-mm balloons was lower (58.5%) compared to the usage of 30-mm balloons (93.3%). All pre- and postoperative EPBD were performed without any complications. Preoperative EPBD is feasible, safe and can be combined with restating endoscopy. It seems that preoperative EPBD reduces the incidence of DGE and can prevent the need for early postoperative endoscopic interventions. Our recommendation is therefore to perform an EPBD preoperatively when possible to reduce postoperative complications to a minimum. For postoperative EPBD, we recommend the use of the 30-mm balloon due to lower redilatation rates.

Robot-assisted and conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy are associated with better postoperative results compared to hybrid and open transthoracic esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Currently 4 surgical techniques are performed for transthoracic esophagectomy (open esophagectomy (OE), hybrid esophagectomy (HE), conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE). Aim of this study was to compare these 4 different esophagectomy approaches regarding postoperative complications and short term oncologic outcomes. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2019, consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction were included in this single center study. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of postoperative complications. RESULTS: Overall 422 patients (OE (n = 107), HE (n = 101), MIE (n = 91) and RAMIE (n = 123)) were evaluated. Uncomplicated postoperative course was observed in 27% (OE), 34% (HE), 53% (MIE), and 63% (RAMIE) of patients (p < 0.001). Pulmonary complications were observed in 57% (OE), 44% (HE), 28% (MIE), and 21% (RAMIE) of patients (p < 0.001). Cardiac complications were present in 25% (OE), 23% (HE), 9% (MIE), and 11% (RAMIE) of patients (p < 0.001). MIE and RAMIE were associated with fewer wound infections (p < 0.001). Median hospital stay after MIE (13 days) and RAMIE (12 days) was shorter compared to OE (20 days) and HE (17 days) (p < 0.001). A median number of 21 (OE), 23 (HE), 23 (MIE), and 31 (RAMIE) lymph nodes was harvested (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Total minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE, RAMIE) was associated with a lower overall, pulmonary, cardiac and wound complication rate as well as a shorter hospital stay compared to open or hybrid approach (OE, HE). RAMIE resulted in higher lymph node harvest than MIE.

The Circular Stapled Esophagogastric Anastomosis in Esophagectomy: No Differences in Anastomotic Insufficiency and Stricture Rates Between the 25 mm and 28 mm Circular Stapler.

BACKGROUND: For patients undergoing an Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with a circular stapled anastomosis, the optimal diameter of the used circular stapler to restore continuity is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the 25 mm stapled versus the 28 mm stapled esophagogastric anastomosis after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, focusing on anastomotic insufficiency and postoperative anastomotic strictures. METHODS: Between February 2008 and June 2019, 349 consecutive patients underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction and circular stapled anastomosis. Patient characteristics and postoperative results, such as anastomotic insufficiency rates, postoperative anastomotic stricture rates, time to anastomotic stricture rate, and the number of dilatations, were recorded in a prospective database and analyzed. RESULTS: In 222 patients (64%), the 25 mm circular stapler was used and in 127 patients (36%) the 28 mm circular stapler was used. There were no differences in baseline characteristics. Anastomotic insufficiency rates were comparable between the 25 mm (12%) and the 28 mm groups (11%) (p = 0.751). There were no differences between postoperative anastomotic strictures in the 25 mm (14%) and the 28 mm groups (14%) (p = 0.863). Within patients with postoperative anastomotic strictures, a median number of 2 dilatations were observed in each group (p = 0.573) without differences in the time to first diagnosis (p = 0.412). CONCLUSION: There were no differences in anastomotic insufficiency and postoperative anastomotic stricture rates between the 25 mm and the 28 mm circular stapled esophagogastric anastomosis after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Both the 25 mm and 28 mm stapler can be safely used to create a circular stapled esophagogastric anastomosis to restore continuity after esophagectomy.

Cecal Resection with Bipolar Sealing Devices in a Rat Model.

Background: Bipolar sealing devices are routinely used to seal blood vessels. The aim of the study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of colonic sealing with the use of the bipolar energy devices in rats as model for experimental appendectomy. Methods: Seventy-five male Wistar rats underwent a cecal resection with four different bipolar sealing devices or a linear stapler. The harvesting procedure was performed immediately or at postoperative day (POD) 7. The sealing front bursting pressure (BP) was measured in both groups. At POD7, the resection line was clinically examined and the hydroxyproline (HDP) levels were determined. Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) staining was used for histopathological evaluation of the sealing front as well. Results: There was no mortality and no insufficiency. The BPs between the bipolar sealing devices showed no statistical differences. The early phase of the seal (POD 0) provides a low BP with an 30.8% increase until POD 7. The BPs in the stapler group showed significant better values. The hydroxyproline levels did not differ statistically between the groups. Histopathologically, there were more signs of ischemic necrosis in the stapler group than in the sealing devices groups. Conclusion: The resection and sealing of the cecum as an experimental appendectomy model with the use of bipolar energy devices proved feasible and safe in rats. The different energy devices in this study produce comparable results. To justify clinical practice in humans, several studies on the underlying mechanisms of early stage wound healing are needed.

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma using extended criteria donor grafts.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (OLT) represents the treatment of choice for small hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC) in patients with end-stage liver disease. However, because of organ scarcity, alternative options must be explored, such as the use of extended criteria donor (ECD) grafts. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed data of transplanted HCC patients using ECD grafts. Statistical analysis included uni- and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression and survival analysis using the Kaplan-Meier method with the log-rank test. RESULTS: Over a 6-year period, we transplanted 53 HCC patients with ECD grafts. The 38 men and 15 women showed a mean age of 56.3 ± 8.26 years. Thirty-four patients underwent a bridging treatment before OLT. Thirty-eight patients (72%) were outside the Milan criteria. The median value for alpha fetoprotein (AFP) level was 30.7 ng/dL. Pathologic tumor grade was G1 (n = 4), G2 (n = 32), G3 (n = 6), or Gx (n = 11). Median follow-up time was 23 months (range, 9-75). Overall 3- and 5- year patient survivals were 79% and 74%, respectively. The 5-year survivals for patients within or outside the Milan criteria were 87% versus 69%, respectively (P = .3728). Donor transaminases and post-OLT hemodialysis were prognostic factors for patient survival upon mutivariate regression analysis (P = .0043 and P = .0003, respectively). CONCLUSION: OLT with ECD grafts constitutes an additional option for patients with HCC and cirrhosis, particularly subjects outside the Milan criteria. The risk- benefit ratio in these instances should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.