Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy vs. Open Esophagectomy: A Retrospective Propensity Score Matched Comparison.

Background and Objectives: Though widely used, only limited data is available that shows the superiority of hybrid minimally-invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) compared to open esophagectomy (OE). The present study aimed to analyze postoperative morbidity, mortality, and compare lengths of hospital stay. Materials and Methods: A total of 174 patients underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in our surgical department, of which we retrospectively created a matched population of one hundred (HMIE n = 50, OE n = 50). Morbidity and mortality data was categorized, analyzed, and risk factor analyzed for complications. Results: The oncological results were found to be comparable in both groups. A median of 23.5 lymphnodes were harvested during OE, and 21.0 during HMIE. Negative tumor margins were achieved in 98% of OE and 100% of HMIE. In-hospital mortality rate showed no significant difference between techniques (OE 14.0%, HMIE 4.0%, p = 0.160). Hospital (OE Median 23.00 days, HMIE 16.50 days, p = 0.004) and ICU stay (OE 5.50 days, HMIE 3.00 days, p = 0.003) was significantly shorter after HMIE. The overall complication rate was 50%, but complications in general (OE 70.00%, HMIE 30%, p < 0.001) as well as severe complications (Clavien Dindo ≥ III: HMIE 16.0%, OE 48.0%, p < 0.001) were significantly more common after OE. In multivariate stepwise regressions the influence of OE proved to be independent for said outcomes. We observed more pulmonary complications in the OE group (46%) compared to HMIE patients (26%). This difference was statistically significant after adjustment for sex, age, BMI, ASA classification, histology, neoadjuvant treatment or not, smoking status, cardiac comorbidities, diabetes mellitus, and alcohol abuse (p = 0.019). Conclusions: HMIE is a feasible technique that significantly decreases morbidity, while ensuring equivalently good oncological resection compared to OE. HMIE should be performed whenever applicable for patients and surgeons.

Endoscopic vacuum therapy for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy: a retrospective analysis at a tertiary university center.

Introduction: Anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy with gastric-pullup is the most feared postoperative complication associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Management of anastomotic leakage underwent an evolution in the last decade from surgical and conservative to an endoscopic management. However, to date there is no clear consensus on management and if endoluminal vacuum therapy (EVT) is the most superior therapy. Material and methods: Between 2012 and 2022 all patients that underwent Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for an underlying malignancy were included in this study. Patients that developed an anastomotic leakage and received endoscopic vacuum therapy were further analysed. Results: A total of 17 patients were treated with EVT following AL after esophagectomy. The median duration of EVT was 23 days with a median number of 5,5 vacuum sponge changes per patient. EVT-systems were placed 12 times intraluminal and 5 times extraluminal. Successful closure of the defect was achieved in 14 patients. Conclusion: Endoscopic vacuum therapy can be successfully applied in the treatment of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy even in septic patients with an extraluminal cavity. Event-related complications are present but rare.

Anastomotic Leakage after Oesophagectomy: Upper Endoscopy or Computed Tomography First? Time Is of the Essence.

INTRODUCTION: Anastomotic leakage (AL) following oesophageal surgery is the most feared complication. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to diagnose it in a timely and safe manner. The diagnostic algorithm, however, differs across institutions world-wide, with no clear consensus or guidelines. The aim of this study was to analyse whether computed tomography (CT) or upper endoscopy (UE) should be performed first. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Records of 185 patients undergoing oesophageal surgery for underlying malignancy were analysed. All patients that developed an AL were further analysed. Results of CT and UE were compared to calculate sensitivity. RESULTS: Overall, 33 out of 185 patients were diagnosed with an AL after oesophagectomy. All patients received a CT and a UE. The CT identified 23 out of 33 patients correctly. Sensitivity was 69.7% for CT, compared to 100% for UE. CONCLUSION: If patients are clinically suspicious regarding development of an AL after oesophagectomy, UE should be performed prior to CT as it has a sensitivity of 100%. In addition, treatment by means of endoluminal vacuum therapy (EVT) or self-expanding-metal stents (SEMS) can be initiated promptly.

Risk Factors and Effect of Intrathoracic Anastomotic Leakage after Esophagectomy for Underlying Malignancy-A Ten-Year Analysis at a Tertiary University Centre.

Aim: Surgical resection remains the treatment of choice for curable esophageal cancer patients. Anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy with an intrathoracic anastomosis is the most feared complication, and is the main cause of postoperative morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors associated with anastomotic leakage and its effect on the postoperative outcome. Methods: Between 2012 and 2022, all patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for underlying malignancy were included in this study. We performed a retrospective analysis of 174 patients. The dataset was analyzed to identify risk factors for the occurrence of anastomotic leakage. Results: A total of 174 patients were evaluated. The overall anastomotic leakage rate was 18.96%. The 30-day mortality rate was 8.62%. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified diabetes (p = 0.0020) and obesity (p = 0.027) as independent risk factors associated with anastomotic leakage. AL had a drastic effect on the combined ICU/IMC and overall hospital stay (p < 0.001. Conclusion: Anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis is the most feared complication and major cause of morbidity and mortality. Identifying risk factors preoperatively can contribute to better patient management.

Evaluation of the use of inflammatory biomarkers in the early detection of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy: A retrospective analysis.

Background: Postoperative anastomotic leakage remains a major complication of esophagectomy. The development of a reliable method of early detection of anastomotic leakage can revolutionize the management of esophageal carcinoma. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective data analysis of 147 patients who underwent Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy as a curative attempt to treat distal esophageal carcinoma in our surgery department between 2010 and 2021. C-reactive protein and white blood cell count in postoperative days 1, 3, 5, and 8 were compared in patients with and without anastomotic leakage. The diagnostic accuracy of these tests was challenged against the clinical reference standard represented by computed tomography or upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Results: Twenty-eight patients (19%) developed anastomotic leakage. C-reactive protein values in postoperative day 8 were the only parameter to qualify as a potential clinically helpful test with an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.85 and a P value of less than .01. We calculated the cutoff value for C-reactive protein during postoperative day 8 to be 10.85 mg/dL with specificity and sensitivity of 73.1% and 89.3%, respectively. C-reactive protein showed a positive predictive value of 43.9% and a negative predictive value of 96.7% at this cutoff value. Conclusion: An absolute diagnostic value of postoperative estimation of serum inflammatory biomarkers to detect anastomotic leakage could not be proved. Serum C-reactive protein on postoperative day 8 with a cutoff value of 10.85 mg/dL could be used to exclude anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy to serve as one of the discharge criteria of the patients.

Endoscopic Management of Anastomotic Leakage after Esophageal Surgery: Ten Year Analysis in a Tertiary University Center.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Anastomotic leakage after esophageal surgery remains a feared complication. During the last decade, management of this complication changed from surgical revision to a more conservative and endoscopic approach. However, the treatment remains controversial as the indications for conservative, endoscopic, and surgical approaches remain non-standardized. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2020, all patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for underlying malignancy were included in this study. The data of 28 patients diagnosed with anastomotic leak were further analyzed. RESULTS: Among 141 patients who underwent resection, 28 (19.9%) developed an anastomotic leak, eight (28.6%) of whom died. Thirteen patients were treated with endoluminal vacuum therapy (EVT), seven patients with self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) four patients with primary surgery, one patient with a hemoclip, and three patients were treated conservatively. EVT achieved closure in 92.3% of the patients with a large defect and no EVT-related complications. SEMS therapy was successful in clinically stable patients with small defect sizes. CONCLUSION: EVT can be successfully applied in the treatment of anastomotic leakage in critically ill patients, while SEMS should be limited to clinically stable patients with a small defect size. Surgery is only warranted in patients with sepsis with graft necrosis.

Simultaneous cholecystectomy during gastric and oesophageal resection: a retrospective analysis and critical review of literature.

The higher incidence of gallstone formation after gastrectomy for cancer has been reported as a common complication in many studies but the management strategies are still controversial and need further evaluation. We retrospectivaly analysed between 2007 and 2013, 206 patients who underwent gastric and or oesophageal resection. In 29/93 patients receiving an oesophagectomy a simultaneous cholecystectomy was performed, respectively 31 from 111 patients who underwent a gastrectomy received an incidental cholecystectomy. In 2 patients with an extended gastrectomy, the gallblader removing was performed simultaneously in one case. A subsequent cholecystectomy was performed in 11 cases. The increased surgical mortality was significant higher correlated with an intervention at a later stage point. That suggest that the prohylactic cholecystectomy can be safely performed during a major intervention in order to reduce complication and a reoperation.