Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evidenz in der minimal-invasiven onkologischen Chirurgie des Ösophagus

Evidence in minimally invasive oncological surgery of the esophagus

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Chirurg Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die thorakoabdominale Ösophagektomie spielt bei der Therapie des Ösophaguskarzinoms weiterhin die tragende Rolle. Minimal-invasive Verfahren wurden entwickelt, um die hohe Rate an postoperativer Morbidität und Mortalität zu reduzieren, ohne das onkologische Ergebnis dabei zu gefährden.

Fragestellung

Welche Evidenz besteht in der minimal-invasiven onkologischen Chirurgie des Ösophagus? Profitieren Patienten von einer minimal-invasiven Ösophagektomie im Vergleich zur offenen Technik? Ist eine Reduktion des chirurgischen Zugangstraumas im Einzelnen von Vorteil?

Material und Methodik

Die internationale Literatur wurde gesichtet, ausgewertet und kritisch analysiert.

Ergebnisse

Drei prospektiv randomisierte Studien bestätigen eine Reduktion der postoperativen Morbidität durch die Reduktion des chirurgischen Zugangstraumas bei mindestens gleichwertigem onkologischem Ergebnis. Zu diesem Ergebnis kommen auch diverse retrospektive Analysen sowie Metaanalysen.

Schlussfolgerung

Eine Minimierung des chirurgischen Zugangstraumas bei der thorakoabdominalen Ösophagektomie führt zu einer Reduktion der postoperativen Morbidität im Vergleich zur offenen Chirurgie. Das onkologische Ergebnis bleibt davon nach aktueller Datenlage unbeeinträchtigt.

Abstract

Background

Thoracoabdominal esophagectomy still plays a major role in the oncological treatment for esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive procedures were developed to reduce the high rate of postoperative morbidity and mortality without negatively affecting the oncological outcome.

Objective

What evidence supports minimally invasive oncological surgery of the esophagus? Do patients benefit from minimally invasive esophagectomy compared to an open approach? Is the reduction of surgical access trauma specifically advantageous?

Material and methods

Review, evaluation and critical analysis of the international literature.

Results

A reduction in postoperative morbidity by decreasing surgical trauma was confirmed by three prospective randomized clinical trials, while showing at least similar oncological outcomes. Diverse retrospective analyses and meta-analyses also came to the same result.

Conclusion

A minimization of surgical access trauma during thoracoabdominal esophagectomy reduces postoperative morbidity compared to conventional open surgery. Recent evidence suggests that oncological outcomes are not altered depending on the surgical approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. Avery KN, Metcalfe C, Berrisford R et al (2014) The feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of esophagectomy for esophageal cancer—the ROMIO (randomized oesophagectomy: minimally invasive or open) study: protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 15:200–210. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-200

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Brierley RC, Gaunt D, Metcalfe C et al (2019) Laparoscopically assisted versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer-the randomised oesophagectomy: minimally invasive or open (ROMIO) study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT). BMJ Open 9:e30907. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030907

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Burdall OC, Boddy AP, Fullick J et al (2014) A comparative study of survival after minimally invasive and open oesophagectomy. Surg Endosc 29:431–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3694-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chao Y‑K, Li Z‑G, Wen Y‑W et al (2019) Robotic-assisted esophagectomy vs video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy (REVATE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3441-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Cuschieri A (1993) Endoscopic subtotal oesophagectomy for cancer using the right thoracoscopic approach. Surg Oncol 2:3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/0960-7404(93)90052-Z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dallemagne B, Weerts JM, Jehaes C et al (2009) Case report: subtotal oesophagectomy by thoracoscopy and laparoscopy. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 1:183–185. https://doi.org/10.3109/13645709209152942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fuchs HF, Harnsberger CR, Broderick RC et al (2017) Mortality after esophagectomy is heavily impacted by center volume: retrospective analysis of the nationwide inpatient sample. Surg Endosc 31:2491–2497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5251-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Guo W, Ma X, Yang S et al (2016) Combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: a meta-analysis of outcomes. Surg Endosc 30:3873–3881. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4692-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Horgan S, Berger RA, Elli EF, Espat NJ (2003) Robotic-assisted minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy. Am Surg 69:624–626

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kataoka K, Takeuchi H, Mizusawa J et al (2016) A randomized phase III trial of thoracoscopic versus open esophagectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer: Japan clinical oncology group study JCOG1409. Jpn J Clin Oncol 46:174–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyv178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lordick F, Mariette C, Haustermans K et al (2016) Oesophageal cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 27:v50–v57. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw329

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Low DE, Kuppusamy MK, Alderson D et al (2019) Benchmarking complications associated with esophagectomy. Ann Surg 269:291–298. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002611

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Luketich JD, Alvelo-Rivera M, Buenaventura PO et al (2003) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcomes in 222 patients. Ann Surg 238:486–494. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000089858.40725.68 (discussion 494–5)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Mariette C, Markar SR, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS et al (2019) Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 380:152–162. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1805101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mariette C, Piessen G, Briez N, Gronnier C, Triboulet JP (2011) Oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma: which therapeutic approach? Lancet Oncol 12:296–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70125-X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Biere SSAY, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW et al (2012) Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 379:1887–1892. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60516-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nagpal K, Ahmed K, Vats A et al (2010) Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 24:1621–1629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0822-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schmidt HM, Gisbertz SS, Moons J et al (2017) Defining benchmarks for transthoracic esophagectomy. Ann Surg 266:814–821. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schröder W, Raptis DA, Schmidt HM et al (2019) Anastomotic techniques and associated morbidity in total minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy. Ann Surg 270:820–826. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sihag S, Kosinski AS, Gaissert HA et al (2016) Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a comparison of early surgical outcomes from the society of thoracic surgeons national database. Ann Thorac Surg 101:1281–1289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.09.095

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Takeuchi H, Miyata H, Ozawa S et al (2017) Comparison of short-term outcomes between open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer using a nationwide database in Japan. Ann Surg Oncol 24:1821–1827. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-5808-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. van der Sluis PC, van der Horst S, May AM et al (2019) Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 269:621–630. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. van Hillegersberg R, Boone J, Draaisma WA et al (2006) First experience with robot-assisted thoracoscopic esophagolymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc 20:1435–1439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0674-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. van Workum F, Klarenbeek BR, Baranov N et al (2020) Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Esophagus 33:1. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doaa021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Xiong W‑L, Li R, Lei H‑K, Jiang Z‑Y (2017) Comparison of outcomes between minimally invasive oesophagectomy and open oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer. ANZ J Surg 87:165–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.13334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yibulayin W, Abulizi S, Lv H, Sun W (2016) Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Onc. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-016-1062-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral‑, Tumor- und Transplantationschirurgie, Uniklinik Köln, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Köln, Deutschland

    B. Babic,  L. M. Schiffmann,  W. Schröder,  C. J. Bruns &  H. F. Fuchs

Authors
  1. B. Babic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. M. Schiffmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. W. Schröder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. J. Bruns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H. F. Fuchs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. F. Fuchs.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

B. Babic, L.M. Schiffmann, W. Schröder, C.J. Bruns und H.F. Fuchs geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Additional information

Reaktion

C.T. Germer, Würzburg

Die Autoren B. Babic und L.M. Schiffmann teilen sich die Erstautorenschaft.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Babic, B., Schiffmann, L.M., Schröder, W. et al. Evidenz in der minimal-invasiven onkologischen Chirurgie des Ösophagus. Chirurg 92, 299–303 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-020-01337-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-020-01337-x

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation