ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Radical surgery for esophageal cancer requires macroscopic and microscopic clearance of all malignant tissue. A critical element of the procedure is achieving a negative circumferential margin (CRM) to minimize local recurrence. The utility of minimally invasive surgery poses challenges in replicating techniques developed in open surgery, particularly for hiatal dissection in esophago-gastrectomy. In this study, the technical approach and clinical and oncological outcomes for open and laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy are described with particular reference to CRM involvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cohort study included all patients undergoing either open or laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy between January 2004 to June 2022 in a single tertiary center. A standard surgical technique for hiatal dissection of the esophago-gastric junction developed in open surgery was adapted for a laparoscopic approach. Clinical parameters, length of stay (LOS), post-operative complications and mortality data were collected and analyzed by a Mann-Whitney U or Fisher's exact method. RESULTS: Overall 447 patients underwent an esophago-gastrectomy in the study with 219 open and 228 laparoscopic procedures. The CRM involvement was 18.8% in open surgery and 13.6% in laparoscopic surgery. The 90-day-mortality for open surgery was 4.1% compared with 2.2% for laparoscopic procedures. Median Intensive care unit (ITU), inpatient LOS and 30-day readmission rates were shorter for laparoscopic compared with open esophago-gastrectomy (ITU: 5 versus 8 days, P=0.0004; LOS: 14 versus 20 days, P=0.022; 30-day re-admission 7.46% versus 10.50%). Post-operative complication rates were comparable across both cohorts. The rates of starting adjuvant chemotherapy were 51.8% after open and 74.4% in laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy. CONCLUSION: This study presents a standardized surgical approach to hiatal dissection for esophageal cancer. We present equivalence between open and laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy in clinical, oncological and survival outcomes with similar rates of CRM involvement. We also observe a significantly shorter hospital length of stay with the minimally invasive approach.
