Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evolving changes of minimally invasive esophagectomy: a single-institution experience

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Initial adoption of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) began in the late 1990s but its surgical technique, perioperative management, and outcome continues to evolve.

Methods

The aim of this study was to examine the evolving changes in the technique, outcome, and new strategies in management of postoperative leaks after MIE was performed at a single institution over a two-decade period. A retrospective chart review of 75 MIE operations was performed between November 2011 and September 2018 and this was compared to the initial series of 104 MIE operations performed by the same group between 1998 and 2007. Operative technique, outcomes, and management strategies of leaks were compared.

Results

There were 65 males (86.7%) with an average age of 61 years. The laparoscopic/thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy became the preferred MIE approach (49% of cases in the initial vs. 95% in the current series). Compared to the initial case series, there was no significant difference in median length of stay (8 vs. 8 days), major complications (12.5% vs. 14.7%, p = 0.68), incidence of leak (9.6% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.82), anastomotic stricture (26% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.38), or in-hospital mortality (2.9% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.47). Management of esophageal leaks has changed from primarily thoracotomy ± diversion initially (50% of leak cases) to endoscopic stenting ± laparoscopy/thoracoscopy currently (87.5% of leak cases).

Conclusion

In a single-institutional series of MIE over two decades, there was a shift toward a preference for the laparoscopic/thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis approach with similar outcomes. The management of postoperative leaks drastically changed with predilection toward minimally invasive option with endoscopic drainage and stenting.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Luketich JD, Nguyen NT, Weigel T, Ferson P, Keenan R, Schauer P (1998) Minimally invasive approach to esophagectomy. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 2(3):243–247

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Nguyen NT, Rudersdorf PD, Smith BR, Reavis K, Nguyen XM, Stamos MJ (2011) Management of gastrointestinal leaks after minimally invasive esophagectomy: conventional treatments vs. endoscopic stenting. J Gastrointest Surg. 15(11):1952–1960

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Franchetti Y, Catalano PJ, Swanson S, Sugarbaker DJ et al (2015) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: results of a prospective phase II multicenter trial-the eastern cooperative oncology group (E2202) study. Ann Surg 261(4):702–707

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Nguyen NT, Follette DM, Wolfe BM, Schneider PD, Roberts P, Goodnight JE Jr (2000) Comparison of minimally invasive esophagectomy with transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy. Arch Surg 135(8):920–925

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nguyen NT, Hinojosa MW, Smith BR, Chang KJ, Gray J, Hoyt D (2008) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: lessons learned from 104 operations. Ann Surg 248(6):1081–1091

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pennathur A, Awais O, Luketich JD (2010) Technique of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 89(6):S2159–S2162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Maas KW, Biere SSAY, Scheepers JJG, Gisbertz SS, Turrado Rodriguez VT, van der Peet DL et al (2012) Minimally invasive intrathoracic anastomosis after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for cancer: a review of transoral or transthoracic use of staplers. Surg Endosc 26(7):1795–1802

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Ai B, Zhang Z, Liao Y (2014) Laparoscopic and thoracoscopic esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis for middle or lower esophageal carcinoma. J Thorac Dis 6(9):1354–1357

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Luketich JD, Alvelo-Rivera M, Buenaventura PO, Christie NA, McCaughan JS, Litle VR et al (2003) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcomes in 222 patients. Ann Surg 238(4):486–494 (Discussion 94–95)

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O, Levy RM, Keeley S, Shende M et al (2012) Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg 256(1):95–103

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Sihag S, Wright CD, Wain JC, Gaissert HA, Lanuti M, Allan JS et al (2012) Comparison of perioperative outcomes following open versus minimally invasive Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy at a single, high-volume centre. Eur J Cardio-thorac Surg 42(3):430–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Taniyama Y, Miyata G, Kamei T, Nakano T, Abe S, Katsura K et al (2015) Complications following recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph node dissection in oesophageal cancer surgery. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 20(1):41–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Koyanagi K, Igaki H, Iwabu J, Ochiai H, Tachimori Y (2015) Recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis after esophagectomy: respiratory complications and role of nerve reconstruction. Tohoku J Exp Med 237(1):1–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Honda M, Kuriyama A, Noma H, Nunobe S, Furukawa TA (2013) Hand-sewn versus mechanical esophagogastric anastomosis after esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 257(2):238–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Liu QX, Qiu Y, Deng XF, Min JX, Dai JG (2015) Comparison of outcomes following end-to-end hand-sewn and mechanical oesophagogastric anastomosis after oesophagectomy for carcinoma: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Eur J Cardio-thorac Surg 47(3):e118–e123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Taylor LJ, Greenberg CC, Lidor AO, Leverson GE, Maloney JD, Macke RA (2017) Utilization of surgical treatment for local and locoregional esophageal cancer: analysis of the National Cancer Data Base. Cancer 123(3):410–419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schaheen L, Blackmon SH, Nason KS (2014) Optimal approach to the management of intrathoracic esophageal leak following esophagectomy: a systematic review. Am J Surg 208(4):536–543

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Schweigert M, Solymosi N, Dubecz A, Gonzalez MP, Stein HJ, Ofner D (2014) One decade of experience with endoscopic stenting for intrathoracic anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy: brilliant breakthrough or flash in the pan? Am Surg 80(8):736–745

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. National-Cancer-Institute (2019) Cancer stat facts: esophageal cancer 2019 https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/esoph.html

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA, USA

    Sahil Gambhir, Shaun Daly, Shelley Maithel, Luke R. Putnam, James Nguyen, Brian R. Smith & Ninh T. Nguyen

  2. Department of Surgery, University of California Irvine Medical Center, 333 City Blvd West, Suite 1600, Orange, CA, 92868, USA

    Ninh T. Nguyen

Authors
  1. Sahil Gambhir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shaun Daly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shelley Maithel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luke R. Putnam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. James Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Brian R. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ninh T. Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ninh T. Nguyen.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Ninh T. Nguyen has received honorarium as a speaker for Covidien, Gore, Novadaq, and Olympus. Brian R. Smith has received honorarium as an educational consultant for STRYKER Endoscopy. Sahil Gambhir, Shaun Daly, Shelley Maithel, Luke Putnam and James Nguyen have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. The authors report no proprietary or commercial interest in any product mentioned or concept discussed in this article. All authors have approved the final article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gambhir, S., Daly, S., Maithel, S. et al. Evolving changes of minimally invasive esophagectomy: a single-institution experience. Surg Endosc 34, 2503–2511 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07057-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07057-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation