Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of pleural adhesions on short- and long-term outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: a propensity score matching analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The extent to which the presence of pleural adhesions affects the surgical and oncological outcomes of patients undergoing McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer (EC) has not previously been studied.

Methods

Data of consecutive EC patients undergoing McKeown MIE by a single surgeon in the Department of Thoracic Surgery at Daping Hospital from November 2015 to December 2020 were collected. Patients were grouped according to the presence or absence of pleural adhesions when entering the chest cavity. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce selection bias from confounding factors. Kaplan–Meier was used to assess the survival differences.

Results

A total of 617 consecutive EC patients underwent McKeown MIE were enrolled. There were 116 patients with pleural adhesions (Group A) and 501 patients without pleural adhesions (Group B). Patients in Group A were more likely to be older than those of patients in Group B: (66.26 vs. 63.27, P = 0.001). In addition, Group A had more patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (24.1% vs. 16.8%, P = 0.04). After propensity score matching (102 matched patients in Group A and 185 matched patients in Group B), these findings were no longer statistically significant. Postoperative pulmonary infection occurred in 57 patients in Group A and in 15 patients in Group B (53.9% vs. 13.0%, P < 0.001). In addition, the presence of pleural adhesions was significantly associated with the prolonged operation time (232 min vs. 210 min, P < .001), length of stay (12 days vs. 10 days, P = 0.001), and hydrothorax requiring drainage (12.7% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.04). However, the disease-specific survival and disease-free survival rates were comparable between the two groups (P = 0.40 and 0.13, respectively).

Conclusions

The presence of pleural adhesions predicted an increased operation time, length of stay, postoperative pneumonia, and hydrothorax requiring drainage of EC patients undergoing McKeown MIE, but did not exert unfavourable effect on long-term survival.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fitzmaurice C, Dicker D, Pain A et al (2015) The global burden of cancer 2013. JAMA Oncol 4:505–527

    Google Scholar 

  2. van der Wilk BJ, Eyck BM, Spaander MCW et al (2019) Towards an organ-sparing approach for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Dig Surg 36(6):462–469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Biere SS, 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(9829):1887–1892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yerokun BA, Sun Z, Yang CJ et al (2016) Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a population-based analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 102(2):416–423

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Sakamoto T, Fujiogi M, Matsui H et al (2021) Comparing perioperative mortality and morbidity of minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a nationwide retrospective analysis. Ann Surg 274(2):324–330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kouritas VK, Kefaloyannis E, Tcherveniakov P et al (2017) Do pleural adhesions influence the outcome of patients undergoing major lung resection? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 25(4):613–619

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Li SJ, Zhou K, Wu YM et al (2018) Presence of pleural adhesions can predict conversion to thoracotomy and postoperative surgical complications in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic lung cancer lobectomy. J Thorac Dis 10(1):416–431

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Li Y, Wang J, Yang F et al (2012) Indications for conversion of thoracoscopic to open thoracotomy in video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy. ANZ J Surg 82(4):245–250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rivera C, Bernard A, Falcoz PE et al (2011) Characterization and prediction of prolonged air leak after pulmonary resection: a nationwide study setting up the index of prolonged air leak. Ann Thorac Surg 92(3):1062–1068

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bao T, Li KK, Liu B et al (2022) Learning curve and associated prognosis of minimally invasive mckeown esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2022.01.045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rice TW, Gress DM, Patil DT et al (2017) Cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction-Major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin 67(4):304–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bao T, Wang YJ, Li KK et al (2020) Short- and long-term outcomes of prophylactic thoracic duct ligation during thoracoscopic-laparoscopic McKeown esophagectomy for cancer: a propensity score matching analysis. Surg Endosc 34(11):5023–5029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Weijs TJ, Seesing MF, van Rossum PS et al (2016) Internal and external validation of a multivariable model to define hospital-acquired pneumonia after esophagectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 20(4):680–687

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Goense L, van Rossum PS, Tromp M et al (2017) Intraoperative and postoperative risk factors for anastomotic leakage and pneumonia after esophagectomy for cancer. Dis Esophagus 30(1):1–10

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zaninotto G, Low DE (2016) Complications after esophagectomy: it is time to speak the same language. Dis Esophagus 29(6):580–582

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Low DE, Alderson D, Cecconello I et al (2015) International consensus on standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). Ann Surg 262(2):286–294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhao K, Mei J, Xia C et al (2017) Prolonged air leak after video-assisted thoracic surgery lung cancer resection: risk factors and its effect on postoperative clinical recovery. J Thorac Dis 9(5):1219–1225

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Varela G, Jiménez MF, Novoa N et al (2005) Estimating hospital costs attributable to prolonged air leak in pulmonary lobectomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 27(2):329–333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Okereke I, Murthy SC, Alster JM et al (2005) Characterization and importance of air leak after lobectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 79(4):1167–1173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Puri V, Patel A, Majumder K et al (2015) Intraoperative conversion from video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy to open thoracotomy: a study of causes and implications. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 149(1):55–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Booka E, Takeuchi H, Nishi T et al (2015) The impact of postoperative complications on survivals after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Medicine 94:e1369

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Rizk NP, Bach PB, Schrag D et al (2004) The impact of complications on outcomes after resection for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 198:42–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Daping Hospital, Army Medical University, Changjiang Route 10#, Daping, Chongqing, 400042, People’s Republic of China

    Tao Bao, Xiao-Long Zhao, Bi Liu, Kun-Kun Li, Ying-Jian Wang & Wei Guo

Authors
  1. Tao Bao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiao-Long Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bi Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kun-Kun Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ying-Jian Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Wei Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TB and WG conceived and designed the experiments. X-LZ, BL, K-KL and YJW recorded the follow-up data. TB analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wei Guo.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Tao Bao, Xiao-Long Zhao, Bi Liu, Kun-Kun Li, Ying-Jian Wang and Wei Guo have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bao, T., Zhao, XL., Liu, B. et al. Effect of pleural adhesions on short- and long-term outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: a propensity score matching analysis. Surg Endosc 37, 1727–1734 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09687-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09687-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation