Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 23, Issue 9, pp 3056–3062 | Cite as

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Utilizing a Stapled Side-to-Side Anastomosis is Safe in the Western Patient Population

  • Kfir Ben-David
  • Rebecca Tuttle
  • Moshim Kukar
  • Georgios Rossidis
  • Steven N. Hochwald
Thoracic Oncology

Abstract

Background

There has been an increased utilization of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in an effort to reduce morbidity, decrease length of stay, and improve quality of life. However, there are limited large series of patients undergoing MIE from the United States and no standardized approach. We reviewed our experience with MIE utilizing a stapled side-to-side anastomosis during a 7.5-year period.

Study Design

A retrospective review of prospectively maintained databases for patients undergoing planned esophagectomy were reviewed from 2007 to 2015. Esophagogastric anastomoses were performed via a 6-cm linear stapled side-to-side method. Demographics, comorbidities, surgical approach, pathology data, and postoperative morbidities were recorded and reviewed.

Results

A MIE was attempted in 303 of 315 (96 %) patients, and a total minimally invasive approach was completed in 293 of 315 (93 %) patients. Location of anastomosis was predominantly in the neck, with 244 patients (77.5 %) undergoing a total minimally invasive McKeown approach (n = 231). A total, minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis was completed in 60 patients (19.1 %). Anastomotic leak was identified in 24 patients (7.6 %). Rates of anastomotic leak were 4.4 % for Ivor-Lewis and 8.5 % for McKeown resection. Median length of stay was 8 days, and in-hospital mortality occurred in only three patients (n = 1 %). Ninety-day follow-up demonstrated a 4.1 % stricture rate requiring dilatation.

Conclusions

In the Western patient population, MIE utilizing a 6-cm stapled side-to-side anastomosis is associated with low rates of anastomotic leak, stricture, and mortality.

Keywords

Anastomotic Leak Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Stricture Rate Gastric Conduit Transhiatal Esophagectomy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(1):5–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(22):2074–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sagar PM, Gauperaa T, Sue-Ling H, McMahon MJ, Johnston D. An audit of the treatment of cancer of the oesophagus. Gut. 1994;35(7):941–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Papenfuss WA, Kukar M, Attwood K, et al. Transhiatal versus transthoracic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a 2005–2011 NSQIP comparison of modern multicenter results. J Surg Oncol. 2014;110(3):298–301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ben-David K, Ang D, Grobmyer SR, Liu H, Kim T, Hochwald SN. Esophagectomy in the state of Florida: is regionalization of care warranted? Am Surg. 2012;78(3):291–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB, Staiger DO. Operative mortality and procedure volume as predictors of subsequent hospital performance. Ann Surg. 2006;243(3):411–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chang AC, Ji H, Birkmeyer NJ, Orringer MB, Birkmeyer JD. Outcomes after transhiatal and transthoracic esophagectomy for cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85(2):424–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(15):1128–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Thrumurthy S, Low DE. Volume-outcome relationship in surgery for esophageal malignancy: systematic review and meta-analysis 2000–2011. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16(5):1055–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW, et al. Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9829):1887–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    DePaula AL, Hashiba K, Ferreira EA, de Paula RA, Grecco E. Laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy with esophagogastroplasty. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1995;5(1):1–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Swanstrom LL, Hansen P. Laparoscopic total esophagectomy. Arch Surg. 1997;132(9):943–7. (discussion 947–9)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bizekis C, Kent MS, Luketich JD, et al. Initial experience with minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;82(2):402–6. (discussion 406–7).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O, et al. Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg. 2012;256(1):95–103.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ben-David K, Sarosi GA, Cendan JC, Howard D, Rossidis G, Hochwald SN. Decreasing morbidity and mortality in 100 consecutive minimally invasive esophagectomies. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(1):162–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ben-David K, Rossidis G, Zlotecki RA, et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy is safe and effective following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(12):3324–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kukar M, Alnaji RM, Jabi F, et al. Role of repeat 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography examination in predicting pathologic response following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(6):555–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Markar SR, Schmidt H, Kunz S, Bodnar A, Hubka M, Low DE. Evolution of standardized clinical pathways: refining multidisciplinary care and process to improve outcomes of the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18(7):1238–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ben-David K, Kim T, Caban AM, Rossidis G, Rodriguez SS, Hochwald SN. Pre-therapy laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy is safe and effective in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17(8):1352–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ben-David K, Sarosi GA, Cendan JC, Hochwald SN. Technique of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy with intrathoracic stapled side-to-side anastomosis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14(10):1613–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hochwald SN, Ben-David K. Minimally invasive esophagectomy with cervical esophagogastric anastomosis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16(9):1775–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kukar M, Hochwald SN. Laparoscopic and thoracoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis. In: Hochwald SN, Kukar M, editors. Minimally invasive foregut surgery for malignancy: principles and practice. New York: Springer; 2015:147–56.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Palanivelu C, Prakash A, Senthilkumar R, et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy: thoracoscopic mobilization of the esophagus and mediastinal lymphadenectomy in prone position–experience of 130 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;203(1):7–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nguyen NT, Hinojosa MW, Smith BR, Chang KJ, Gray J, Hoyt D. Minimally invasive esophagectomy: lessons learned from 104 operations. Ann Surg. 2008;248(6):1081–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jaroszewski DE, Williams DG, Fleischer DE, Ross HJ, Romero Y, Harold KL. An early experience using the technique of transoral OrVil EEA stapler for minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92(5):1862–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yendamuri S, Gutierrez L, Oni A, et al. Does circular stapled esophagogastric anastomotic size affect the incidence of postoperative strictures? J Surg Res. 2011;165(1):1–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kim T, Hochwald SN, Sarosi GA, Caban AM, Rossidis G, Ben-David K. Review of minimally invasive esophagectomy and current controversies. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2012;2012:683213.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sarkaria IS, Rizk NP. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: the Ivor Lewis approach. Thorac Surg Clin. 2014;24(2):211–22. (vii)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van der Sluis PC, Ruurda JP, van der Horst S, et al. Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer, a randomized controlled trial (ROBOT trial). Trials. 2012;13:230-6215-13-230.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Abbas H, Rossidis G, Hochwald SN, Ben-David K. Robotic esophagectomy: new era of surgery. Minerva Chir. 2013;68(5):427–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Weksler B, Sharma P, Moudgill N, Chojnacki KA, Rosato EL. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy is equivalent to thoracoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus. 2012;25(5):403–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kfir Ben-David
    • 1
  • Rebecca Tuttle
    • 2
  • Moshim Kukar
    • 2
  • Georgios Rossidis
    • 3
  • Steven N. Hochwald
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryMount Sinai Medical CenterMiami BeachUSA
  2. 2.Department of Surgical OncologyRoswell Park Cancer InstituteBuffaloUSA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Florida College of MedicineGainesvilleUSA
  4. 4.Roswell Park Cancer InstituteBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations