Abstract
Background:
Although surgical resection currently is the preferred treatment for fit patients with resectable esophageal cancers, it is associated with a relatively high risk of morbidity and significant perioperative mortality. Currently, a range of open surgical approaches are used. More recently, minimally invasive approaches have become feasible, with the potential to reduce perioperative morbidity. This study investigated the outcomes from one such approach.
Methods:
Outcome data were collected prospectively for 36 consecutive patients who underwent a minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. A three-stage approach was used, with all the patients undergoing a thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization, combined with either open or hand-assisted laparoscopic abdominal gastric mobilization, and open cervical anastomosis. An open abdominal approach was used for 15 of the patients and a hand-assisted laparoscopic approach for 21. A total of 34 patients had invasive malignancy, whereas 2 had preinvasive disease. A group of 23 patients (68%) who had invasive malignancies also received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
Results:
The mean operating time ranged from 190 to 360 min (mean, 263 min). The median postoperative hospital stay was 16 days. In-hospital mortality was 5.5% (2/36), and perioperative morbidity was 41%. The perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing an open abdominal approach and those who had hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery were similar. For the patients who underwent a hand-assisted laparoscopic abdominal procedure, the total operating time was shorter (248 vs 281 min), and the blood loss was less (223 vs 440 ml). The median follow-up period was 30 months. The 4-year survival predicted by Kaplan–Meir for the 34 patients with invasive malignancy was 44%.
Conclusion:
The outcome for esophagectomy using thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization, with or without hand-assisted laparoscopic abdominal surgery, was comparable with data from conventional open surgical approaches. These approaches can be performed with an acceptable level of perioperative morbidity. Further application of these techniques, with close scrutiny of outcome data, is appropriate.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aly A, Watson DI (2004) Diaphragmatic hernia after minimally invasive esophagectomy. Dis Esoph 17: 183–186
Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, Stukel TA, Lucas FL, Batista I, Welch HG, Wennberg DE (2002) Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 346: 1128–1137
Bonavina L, Incarbone R, Bona D, Peracchia A (2004) Esophagectomy via laparoscopy and transmediastinal endodissection. J Laparendosc Adv Surg Tech A 14: 13–16
Feith M, Stein HJ, Siewert JR (2003) Pattern of lymphatic spread of Barrett’s cancer. World J Surg 27: 1052–1057
Hulscher JB, van Sandick JW, de Ber AG, Wijnhoven BP, Tijssen JG, Fockens P, Stalmeier PF, ten Kate FJ, van Dekken H, Obertop H, Tilanus HW, van Lanschot JJ (2002) Extended transthoracic resection compared with limited transhiatal resection for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. N Engl J Med 347: 1662–1669
Jamieson GG, Mathew G, Ludemann R, Wayman J, Myers JC, Devitt PG (2004) Postoperative mortality following esophagectomy and problems in reporting its rate. Br J Surg 91: 943–947
Law S, Wong J (2004) Therapeutic options for esophageal cancer. J Gastrenterol Hepatol 19: 4–12
Luketich JD, Alvelo-Rivera M, Buenaventura PO, Christie NA, McCaughan JS, Litle VR, Schauer PR, Close JM, Fernando HC (2003) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcomes in 222 patients. Ann Surg 238: 486–494
Luketich JD, Schauer PR, Christie NA, Weigel TL, Raja S, Fernando HC, Keenan RJ, Nguyen NT (2000) Minimally invasive esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 70: 906–911
Neuhaus SJ, Texler M, Hewett PJ, Watson DI (1998) Port-site metastases following laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg 85: 735–741
Nguyen NT, Follette-Wolfe BM (2000) Comparison of minimally invasive esophagectomy with transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy. Arch Surg 135: 920–925
Nguyen NT, Roberts P, Follette DM, Rivers R, Wolfe BM (2003) Thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy for benign and malignant disease: lessons learned from 46 consecutive procedures. J Am Coll Surg 197: 902–913
Osugi H, Takemura M, Higashino M, Takada N, Lee S, Kinoshita H (2003) A comparison of video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy and radical lymph node dissection for squamous cell cancer of the esophagus with open operation. Br J Surg 90: 108–113
Rizk NP, Bach PB, Schrag D, Bains MS, Turnbull AD, Karpeh M, Brennan MF, Rusch VW (2004) The impact of complications on outcomes after resection for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 198: 42–50
Smithers BM, Gotley DC, McEwan D, Martin I, Bessell J, Doyle L (2001) Thoracoscopic mobilization of the esophagus: a 6-year experience. Surg Endosc 15: 176–182
Urschel JD (1995) Esophagogastrostomy anastomotic leaks complicating esophagectomy: a review. Am J Surg 169: 634–640
Watson DI, Baigrie RJ, Jamieson GG (1996) A learning curve for laparoscopic fundoplication: definable, avoidable, or just a waste of time? Ann Surg 224: 198–203
Watson DI, Davies N, Jamieson GG (1999) Totally endoscopic Ivor–Lewis esophagectomy. Surg Endosc 13: 293–297
Watson DI, Jamieson GG, Devitt PG (2000) Endoscopic cervicothoracoabdominal esophagectomy. J Am Coll Surg 190: 372–378
Zhang X, Watson DI, Jamieson GG, Lally C, Bessell JR, Devitt PG (2005) Outcome of esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction. ANZ J Surg 75: 513–519
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Martin, D.J., Bessell, J.R., Chew, A. et al. Thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy: initial experience and outcomes. Surg Endosc 19, 1597–1601 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0185-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0185-7