Quality of Life and Late Complications After Minimally Invasive Compared to Open Esophagectomy: Results of a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is widely being implemented for esophageal cancer in order to reduce morbidity and improve quality of life. Non-randomized studies investigating the mid-term quality of life after MIE show conflicting results at 1-year follow-up. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine whether MIE has a continuing better mid-term 1-year quality of life than open esophagectomy (OE) indicating both a faster recovery and less procedure-related symptoms. METHODS: A one-year follow-up analysis of the quality of life was conducted for patients participating in the randomized trial in which MIE was compared with OE. Late complications as symptomatic stenosis of anastomosis are also reported. RESULTS: Quality of life at 1 year was better in the MIE group than in the OE group for the physical component summary SF36 [50 (6; 48-53) versus 45 (9; 42-48) p .003]; global health C30 [79 (10; 76-83) versus 67 (21; 60-75) p .004]; and pain OES18 module [6 (9; 2-8) versus 16 (16; 10-22) p .001], respectively. Twenty six patients (44%) in the MIE and 22 patients (39%) in the OE group were diagnosed and treated for symptomatic stenosis of the anastomosis. CONCLUSIONS: This first randomized trial shows that MIE is associated with a better mid-term one-year quality of life compared to OE.

Immunological changes after minimally invasive or conventional esophageal resection for cancer: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: This study was performed as a substudy analysis of a randomized trial comparing conventional open esophagectomy [open surgical technique (OE)] by thoracotomy and laparotomy with minimally invasive esophagectomy [minimally invasive procedure (MIE)] by thoracoscopy and laparoscopy. This additional analysis focuses on the immunological changes and surgical stress response in these two randomized groups of a single center. METHODS: Patients with a resectable esophageal cancer were randomized to OE (n = 13) or MIE (n = 14). All patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The immunological response was measured by means of leukocyte counts, HLA-DR expression on monocytes, the acute-phase response by means of C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and interleukin-8 (IL-8), and the stress response was measured by cortisol, growth hormone, and prolactin. All parameters were determined at baseline (preoperatively) and 24, 72, 96, and 168 h postoperatively. RESULTS: Significant differences between the two groups were seen in favor of the MIE group with regard to leukocyte counts, IL-8, and prolactin at 168 h (1 week) postoperatively. For HLA-DR expression, IL-6, and CRP levels, there were no significant differences between the two groups, although there was a clear rise in levels upon operation in both groups. CONCLUSION: In this substudy of a randomized trial comparing minimally invasive and conventional open esophagectomies for cancer, significantly better preserved leukocyte counts and IL-8 levels were observed in the MIE group compared to the open group. Both findings can be related to fewer respiratory infections found postoperatively in the MIE group. Moreover, significant differences in the prolactin levels at 168 h after surgery imply that the stress response is better preserved in the MIE group. These findings indicate that less surgical trauma could lead to better preserved acute-phase and stress responses and fewer clinical manifestations of respiratory infections.

Minimally invasive intrathoracic anastomosis after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for cancer: a review of transoral or transthoracic use of staplers.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy is one of the approaches used worldwide for treating esophageal cancer. Optimization of this approach and especially identifying the ideal intrathoracic anastomosis technique is needed. To date, different types of anastomosis have been described. A literature search on the current techniques and approaches for intrathoracic anastomosis was held. The studies were evaluated on leakage and stenosis rate of the anastomosis. METHODS: The PubMed electronic database was used for comprehensive literature search by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in this review. The most frequent applied technique was the stapled anastomosis. Stapled anastomoses can be divided into a transthoracic or a transoral introduction. This stapled approach can be performed with a circular or linear stapler. The reported anastomotic leakage rate ranges from 0 to 10%. The reported anastomotic stenosis rate ranges from 0 to 27.5%. CONCLUSIONS: This review has found no important differences between the two most frequently used stapled anastomoses: the transoral introduction of the anvil and the transthoracic. Clinical trials are needed to compare different methods to improve the quality of the intrathoracic anastomosis after esophagectomy.

Cervical or thoracic anastomosis after esophagectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cervical anastomosis and thoracic anastomosis are used for gastric tube reconstruction after esophagectomy for cancer. This systematic review was conducted in order to identify randomized trials that compare cervical with thoracic anastomosis. METHODS: A literature search for randomized trials was performed in the following databases: Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library. RESULTS: A total of 4 trials were included. All studies had a small sample size and were of moderate quality. One trial was excluded from the meta-analysis. The following outcomes were significantly associated with a cervical anastomosis: recurrent laryngeal nerve trauma (OR: 7.14; 95% CI: 1.75-29.14; p = 0.006) and anastomotic leakage (OR: 3.43; 95% CI: 1.09-10.78; p = 0.03). None of the following outcomes were associated with the location of the anastomosis: pulmonary complications (OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.13-5.59; p = 0.87), perioperative mortality (OR: 1.24; 95% CI: 0.35-4.41; p = 0.74), benign stricture formation (OR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.17-3.87; p = 0.79) or tumor recurrence (OR: 2.01; 95% CI: 0.68-5.91; p = 0.21). CONCLUSION: Cervical anastomosis could be associated with a higher leak rate and recurrent nerve trauma. However, the currently available randomized evidence is limited. Further randomized trials are needed to provide sufficient evidence for the preferred location of the anastomosis after esophagectomy.

Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Evidence on the benefits of minimally invasive surgery over open procedures in gastrointestinal surgery is continuing to accumulate. This is also the case for esophageal surgery. Esophageal cancer often requires extensive surgery and is, therefore, considered to be one of the most invasive elective gastrointestinal procedures. Clinical studies investigating means to reduce the invasive nature of the surgery are currently being received with great interest. A systematic review and meta-analysis of present literature was performed to evaluate the effects of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) versus open esophagectomy on outcome. All comparative studies comparing MIE with open esophagectomy for cancer were included. Eligible studies were identified from three electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane) and through a cross-reference search. Three comparative groups were created for (meta-) analysis: 1) total MIE verus open transthoracic esophagectomy (TTE); 2) thoracoscopy and laparotomy versus open TTE; 3) laparoscopy versus open transhiatal esophagectomy. Ten studies were identified after a comprehensive search. One controlled clinical trial and 9 case-control studies, comprising 1061 patients, were retrieved. Trends were observed in the various studies in favour of MIE for the following outcome parameters: major morbidity, pulmonary complications, anastomotic leakage, mortality, length of hospital stay, operating time and blood loss. The meta-analysis in group 1 showed no significant differences between the groups for major morbidity or pulmonary complications OR 0.88 (95% CI 0.35-2.14, P=0.78) and OR 1.05 (95% CI 0.42-2.66, P=0.91) respectively. In group 2 significantly fewer cases of anastomotic leakage were reported in the MIE group OR 0.51 (95% CI 0.28-0.95, P=0.03). In both group 1 and 2 a trend toward a reduced mortality was seen in the MIE group, although no statistical significance was reached (group 1: OR 0.58 (95 % CI 0.06-5.56, P=0.64), group 2: OR 0.59 (95% CI 0.20-1.76, P=0.34)). No meta-analysis could be performed for group 3 due to incomplete data of the selected outcome parameters in the various studies. A faster postoperative recovery and, therefore, a reduction in morbidity can be achieved with MIE. Furthermore, less mortality with the implementation of MIE can be realised. MIE is investigated in case-control studies and bias may have been introduced simply by study design. Therefore, randomized trials comparing MIE with open esophagectomy are necessary in order to evaluate outcome more efficiently.

Validation of a nomogram for predicting survival after resection for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.

BACKGROUND: Nomograms are statistical tools providing the overall probability of a specific outcome; they have shown better individual discrimination than the tumour node metastasis staging system in several cancers. The pancreatic nomogram, originally developed in the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in the USA, combines clinicopathological and operative data to predict disease-specific survival at 1, 2 and 3 years from initial resection. METHODS: An external patient cohort from a retrospective pancreatic adenocarcinoma database at the Academic Medical Centre in Amsterdam was used to test the validity of the pancreatic adenocarcinoma nomogram. The cohort included 263 consecutive patients who had surgery between January 1985 and December 2004. RESULTS: Data for all the necessary variables were available for 256 patients (97.3 per cent). At the last follow-up, 35 patients were alive, with a median follow-up of 27 (range 3-114) months. The 1-, 2- and 3-year disease-specific survival rates were 60.8, 30.4 and 16.0 per cent respectively. The nomogram concordance index was 0.61. The calibration analysis of the model showed that the predicted survival did not significantly deviate from the actual survival. CONCLUSION: The MSKCC pancreatic cancer nomogram provided an accurate survival prediction. It may aid in counselling patients and in stratification of patients for clinical trials.

Hand-assisted or laparoscopic-assisted approach in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of benefits of laparoscopic and laparoscopic-assisted colectomies (LAC) over open procedures in gastrointestinal surgery has continued to accumulate. With its wide implementation, technical difficulties and limitations of LAC have become clear. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) was introduced in an attempt to facilitate the transition from open techniques to minimally invasive procedures. Continuing debate exists about which approach is to be preferred, HALS or LAC. Several studies have compared these two techniques in colorectal surgery, but no single study provided evidence which procedure is superior. Therefore, a systematic review was carried out comparing HALS with LAC colorectal resection. METHODS: Eligible studies were identified from electronic databases (Medline, Embase Cochrane) and cross-reference search. The database search, quality assessment, and data extraction were independently performed by two reviewers. Minimal outcome criteria for inclusion were operating time, conversion rate, hospital stay, and morbidity. RESULTS: Out of 468 studies a total of 13 studies were selected for comprehensive review. Two randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 11 non-RCTs, comprising 1017 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Because of possible clinical heterogeneity two groups of procedures were created: segmental colectomies and total (procto)colectomies. In the segmental colectomy group significant differences in favor of the HALS group were seen in operating time (WMD 19 min) and conversion rate (OR of 0.3 conversions). In the total (procto)colectomy group a significant difference in favor of the HALS group was seen in operating time (WMD 61 min). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review indicates that HALS provides a more efficient segmental colectomy regarding operating time and conversion rate, particularly accounting for diverticulitis. A significant operating time advantage exists for HALS total (procto)colectomy. HALS must therefore be considered a valuable addition to the laparoscopic armamentarium to avoid conversion and speed up complicated colectomies.