A comparative study of survival after minimally invasive and open oesophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal cancer is increasing in incidence worldwide. Minimally invasive techniques have been used to perform oesophagectomy, but concerns regarding these techniques remain. Since its description by Cuschieri in 1992, the use of minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) has increased, but still only used in a minority of resections in the UK in 2009. In particular, there has been reluctance to use minimally invasive (thoracoscopic and laparoscopic) techniques in more advanced cancers for fears regarding the adequacy of the oncological resection. In order to identify any factors that could affect survival, we undertook a retrospective analysis on all patients who underwent surgery in our department over an 8-year period. METHODS: A retrospective data analysis was undertaken on all patients who underwent oesophagectomy in a tertiary upper gastrointestinal surgery unit, from 2005 to 2012 inclusive. Data were collected from the departmental database and case note review, with follow-up and survival data to time of data collection. The survival data were analysed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models to determine which variables affected survival. Variables examined included age, tumour position, tumour stage (T0, 1, 2 vs T3, 4), nodal stage (N0 vs N1), tumour histology, completeness of resection (R0 vs R1), use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and operative technique (thoracoscopic/laparoscopic (MIO) vs laparoscopic abdomen/open chest (Lap assisted) vs Open. RESULTS: 334 patients underwent oesophagectomy between 2005 and 2012. Male to female ratio was 3.75:1, with a mean age of 64 years (range 36-87). There were 83 open oesophagectomies, 187 laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomies and 64 minimally invasive oesophagectomies. Following univariate regression analysis the following factors were found to be correlated to survival: use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Hazard Ratio 2.889, 95 % CI 1.737-4.806), T stage 3 or 4 (3.749, 2.475-5.72), Node positive (5.225, 3.561-7.665), R1 resection (2.182, 1.425-3.341), type of operation (MIO compared to open oesophagectomy) (0.293, 0.158-0.541). There was no significant relationship between age, tumour position or tumour histology and length of survival. When these factors were entered into a multivariate model, the independently significant factors correlated to survival were found to be T stage 3 or 4 (HR 1.969, 1.248-3.105), Node positive (3.833, 2.548-5.766) and type of operation (MIO compared to open) (0.5186, 0.277-0.972). CONCLUSION: Multiple small studies have found reduced pulmonary complication rates and duration of hospital stay when using a minimally invasive approach compared to open. Concerns in the literature over long-term outcomes, however, have led to limited utilisation of this method, especially in advanced disease. The data from this large study show significantly better survival following operations performed using minimally invasive techniques compared to open, however, we have not adjusted for some known or unknown confounding factors. International and national RCTs, however, will provide more information in due course.

The effect of intraperitoneal local anesthesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Intraperitoneal administration of local anesthesia is often used to improve pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We have conducted a meta-analysis to establish the efficacy of this technique in reducing early postoperative abdominal pain. A systematic literature search revealed 24 randomized, controlled trials assessing intraperitoneal local anesthetic use in laparoscopic cholecystectomy that met inclusion criteria. Of these, 16 studies reported sufficient data to allow pooled quantitative analysis. The weighted mean differences (WMD) in visual analog pain score at 4 h after surgery were pooled using a random effects model. Overall, the use of intraperitoneal local anesthesia resulted in a significantly reduced pain score at 4 h (WMD, -9 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13 to -5). Subgroup analysis suggested that the effect was greater when the local anesthetic was given at the start of the operation (WMD, -13 mm; 95% CI, -19 to -7) compared with instillation at the end (WMD, -6 mm; 95% CI, -10 to -2). No adverse events related to local anesthetic toxicity were reported. We conclude that the use of intraperitoneal local anesthesia is safe, and it results in a statistically significant reduction in early postoperative abdominal pain.

The effect of centralisation on the outcomes of oesophagogastric surgery--a fifteen year audit.

INTRODUCTION: Centralisation of oesophagogastric (OG) resectional services has been proposed to improve patient outcomes in terms of perioperative mortality and long-term survival. Centralisation of services occurred in Gloucester 5 years ago. The aim of this paper is to assess if local patient outcomes have benefited from centralisation. METHODS: All oesophagogastric resections performed in our unit over a 15-year period (10-years pre-centralisation and 5-years post-centralisation) were assessed retrospectively. Patient demographics, pathological details and date of death were identified. Perioperative mortality (30 and 90 day) and estimated Kaplan-Meier survival was compared for cases performed pre- and post-centralisation of services. RESULTS: 456 resections for cancer were performed in the 15-year period; 234 of these were performed pre-centralisation (mean 23.4, range 13-31) and 222 were performed post-centralisation (mean 44.4, range 40-50). Median survival rates for gastric cancer were 1.1 years pre-centralisation and 1.5 years post-centralisation (p = 0.147) and median survival for oesophageal cancer improved from 1.1 years to 2.1 respectively (p = 0.028). Combined OG 30-day mortality rates improved from 10.3% pre-centralisation to 3.6% post-centralisation (p = 0.006, Fisher's exact test). DISCUSSION: Centralisation of OG services in Gloucester has resulted in twice as many resections being performed locally. Median survival for patients with oesophageal cancer has increased by 1 year and the 30-day mortality rate following resection has reduced by almost two thirds. Although other factors (such as improvements in oncological treatments, staging and critical care management over the 15-year time period) have undoubtedly had roles to play in these improvements, the results of this study support the policy of centralisation of upper GI cancer services.