Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 26, Issue 11, pp 3736–3744 | Cite as

Long-Term Outcomes of Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy in the Prone versus Lateral Position: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

  • Susumu MiuraEmail author
  • Tetsu Nakamura
  • Yukiko Miura
  • Gosuke Takiguchi
  • Nobuhisa Takase
  • Hiroshi Hasegawa
  • Masashi Yamamoto
  • Shingo Kanaji
  • Yoshiko Matsuda
  • Kimihiro Yamashita
  • Takeru Matsuda
  • Taro Oshikiri
  • Satoshi Suzuki
  • Yoshihiro Kakeji
Thoracic Oncology

Abstract

Background

Several studies have suggested that thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TE) in the prone position (TEP) may be more feasible than TE in the lateral position (TEL); however, few studies have compared long-term survival between the two procedures. We evaluated whether TEP is oncologically equivalent to TEL.

Methods

Surgical outcomes of TEs performed from January 2006 to December 2013 at our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to control for confounding factors.

Results

TE was performed in 200 patients diagnosed with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; 78 patients were matched in two procedures. The mean thoracic operative time in TEL was shorter than in TEP (228.9 min vs. 299.1 min; p < 0.001); however, the mean thoracic blood loss in TEL was higher than in TEP (186.9 ml vs. 76.5 ml; p < 0.001). The mean number of thoracic lymph nodes harvested in TEL was lower than in TEP (23.5 vs. 26.9; p < 0.05), and the pulmonary complication rate in TEL was higher than in TEP (30.8% vs. 15.4%; p < 0.05). The 5-year overall survival rates in pathological stage I (81.2% vs. 81.6%; p = 0.82), stage II (65.3% vs. 80.9%; p = 0.21), stage III (26.7% vs. 24.2%; p = 0.86) and all stages (63.6% vs. 62.3%; p = 0.88), and the 5-year progression-free survival rates in pathological stage I (78.0% vs. 81.8%; p = 0.54), stage II (53.5% vs. 77.6%; p = 0.13), stage III (10.5% vs. 12.8%; p = 0.81) and all stages (53.6% vs. 57.9%; p = 0.50) were not significantly different between the two procedures.

Conclusion

TEP and TEL provide equal oncological efficiency.

Notes

Disclosures

Susumu Miura, Tetsu Nakamura, Yukiko Miura, Gosuke Takiguchi, Nobuhisa Takase, Hiroshi Hasegawa, Masashi Yamamoto, Shingo Kanaji, Yoshiko Matsuda, Kimihiro Yamashita, Takeru Matsuda, Taro Oshikiri, Satoshi Suzuki, and Yoshihiro Kakeji have no commercial interests in the study subject to disclose.

Supplementary material

10434_2019_7619_MOESM1_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 18 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Cuschieri A, Shimi S, Banting S. Endoscopic oesophagectomy through a right thoracoscopic approach. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1992; 37:7–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Luketich JD, Alvelo-Rivera M, Buenaventura PO, et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcomes in 222 patients. Ann Surg. 2003; 238:486–94.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Osugi H, Takemura M, Higashino M, Takada N, Lee S, Kinoshita H. A comparison of video-assisted thoracoscopic oesophagectomy and radical lymph node dissection for squamous cell cancer of the oesophagus with open operation. Br J Surg. 2003; 90:108–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sundaram A, Geronimo JC, Willer BL, et al. Survival and quality of life after minimally invasive esophagectomy: a single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc. 2012; 26:168–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dolan JP, Kaur T, Diggs BS, et al. Impact of comorbidity on outcomes and overall survival after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2013; 27:4094–103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cuschieri A. Thoracoscopic subtotal oesophagectomy. Endosc Surg Allied Technol. 1994; 2:21–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Palanivelu C, Prakash A, Senthilkumar R, Senthilnathan P, Parthasarathi R, Rajan PS, 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; 203:7–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smithers BM, Gotley DC, Martin I, Thomas JM. Comparison of the outcomes between open and minimally invasive esophagectomy. Ann Surg. 2007; 245:232–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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; 379:1887–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Straatman J, van der Wielen N, Cuesta MA, et al. Minimally invasive versus open esophageal resection: three-year follow-up of the previously reported randomized controlled trial: the TIME trial. Ann Surg. 2017; 266:232–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yamashita K, Watanabe M, Mine S, et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy attenuates the postoperative inflammatory response and improves survival compared with open esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer: a propensity score matched analysis. Surg Endosc. 2018; 32:4443–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mamidanna R, Bottle A, Aylin P, Faiz O, Hanna GB. Short-term outcomes following open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer in England: a population-based national study. Ann Surg. 2012; 255:197–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Takeuchi H, Miyata H, Gotoh M, et al. A risk model for esophagectomy using data of 5354 patients included in a Japanese nationwide web-based database. Ann Surg. 2014; 260:259–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weksler B, Sullivan JL. Survival after esophagectomy: a propensity-matched study of different surgical approaches. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017; 104:1138–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seesing MFJ, Gisbertz SS, Goense L, et al. A propensity score matched analysis of open versus minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy in the Netherlands. Ann Surg. 2017; 266:839–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dantoc M, Cox MR, Eslick GD. Evidence to support the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. Arch Surg. 2012; 147:768–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guo W, Ma X, Yang S, et al. Combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: a meta-analysis of outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2016; 30:3873–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fabian T, Martin J, Katigbak M, McKelvey AA, Federico JA. Thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization during minimally invasive esophagectomy: a head-to-head comparison of prone versus decubitus positions. Surg Endosc. 2008; 22:2485–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Noshiro H, Iwasaki H, Kobayashi K, Uchiyama A, Miyasaka Y, Masatugu T, et al. Lymphadenectomy along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve by a minimally invasive esophagectomy in the prone position for thoracic esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2010; 22:2965–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Feng M, Shen Y, Wang H, Tan L, Zhang Y, Khan MA, et al. Thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy: is the prone position a safe alternative to the decubitus position? J Am Coll Surg. 2012; 214:838–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zou YB, Yan H, Liu XH, Zhao YJ, Jiang YG, Wang RW, et al. Lateral position could provide more excellent hemodynamic parameters during video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy for cancer. Surg Endosc. 2013; 27:3720–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shen Y, Feng M, Tan L, Wang H, Li J, Xi Y, et al. Thoracoscopic esophagectomy in prone versus decubitus position: ergonomic evaluation from a randomized and controlled trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014; 98:1072–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Teshima J, Miyata G, Kamei T, et al. Comparison of short-term outcomes between prone and lateral decubitus positions for thoracoscopic esophagectomy. Surg Endosc. 2015; 29:2756–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Markar SR, Wiggins T, Antonowicz S, Zacharakis E, Hanna GB. Minimally invasive esophagectomy: lateral decubitus vs. prone positioning; systematic review and pooled analysis. Surg Oncol. 2015; 24:212–9.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Otsubo D, Nakamura T, Yamamoto M, et al. Prone position in thoracoscopic esophagectomy improves postoperative oxygenation and reduces pulmonary complications. Surg Endosc. 2017; 31:1136–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Noshiro H, Yoda Y, Hiraki M, Kono H, Miyake S, Uchiyama A, et al. Survival outcomes of 220 consecutive patients with three-staged thoracoscopic esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus. 2016; 29:1090–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kuwabara S, Kobayashi K, Kubota A, Shioi I, Yamaguchi K, Katayanagi N. Comparison of perioperative and oncological outcome of thoracoscopic esophagectomy in left decubitus position and in prone position for esophageal cancer. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2018; 403:607–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. TNM classification of malignant tumors. 7th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ajani JA, D’Amico TA, Almhanna K, et al. National comprehensive cancer network. Esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancers, version 1.2015. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2015; 13:194–227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ando N, Kato H, Igaki H, et al. A randomized trial comparing postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil versus preoperative chemotherapy for localized advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus (JCOG9907). Ann Surg Oncol. 2012; 19:68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ando N, Iizuka T, Ide H, et al. Surgery plus chemotherapy compared with surgery alone for localized squamous cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus: a Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study – JCOG9204. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21:4592–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Oshikiri T, Yasuda T, Harada H, et al. A new method (the “Bascule method”) for lymphadenectomy along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve during prone esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2015; 29:2442–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Oshikiri T, Nakamura T, Miura Y, et al. A new method (the “Pincers maneuver”) for lymphadenectomy along the right recurrent laryngeal nerve during thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position for esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2017; 31:1496–504.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Oshikiri T, Nakamura T, Hasegawa H, et al. Reliable surgical techniques for lymphadenectomy along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve during thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017; 24:1018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Oshikiri T, Nakamura T, Miura Y, et al. Practical surgical techniques for lymphadenectomy along the right recurrent laryngeal nerve during thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017; 24:2302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McKeown KC. Total three-stage oesophagectomy for cancer of the oesophagus. Br J Surg. 1976; 63:259–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004; 240:205–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pelosi P, Croci M, Calappi E, Cerisara M, Mulazzi D, Vicardi P, et al. The prone positioning during general anesthesia minimally affects respiratory mechanics while improving functional residual capacity and increasing oxygen tension. Anesth Analg. 1995; 80:955–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Watanabe I, Fujihara H, Sato K, et al. Beneficial effect of a prone position for patients with hypoxemia after transthoracic esophagectomy. Crit Care Med. 2002; 30:1799–802.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nyrén S, Radell P, Lindahl SG, et al. Lung ventilation and perfusion in prone and supine postures with reference to anesthetized and mechanically ventilated healthy volunteers. Anesthesiology. 2010; 112:682–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Scholten EL, Beitler JR, Prisk GK, Malhotra A. Treatment of ARDS with prone positioning. Chest. 2017; 151:215–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Oshikiri T, Yasuda T, Hasegawa H, et al. Short-term outcomes and one surgeon’s learning curve for thoracoscopic esophagectomy performed with the patient in the prone position. Surg Today. 2017; 47:313–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Groth SS, Virnig BA, Whitson BA, DeFor TE, Li ZZ, Tuttle TM, et al. Determination of the minimum number of lymph nodes to examine to maximize survival in patients with esophageal carcinoma: data from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010; 139:612–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lewis I. The surgical treatment of carcinoma of the oesophagus; with special reference to a new operation for growths of the middle third. Br J Surg. 1946; 34:18–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Orringer MB, Marshall B, Iannettoni MD. Transhiatal esophagectomy: clinical experience and refinements. Ann Surg. 1999; 230:392–400.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susumu Miura
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tetsu Nakamura
    • 1
  • Yukiko Miura
    • 1
  • Gosuke Takiguchi
    • 1
  • Nobuhisa Takase
    • 1
  • Hiroshi Hasegawa
    • 1
  • Masashi Yamamoto
    • 1
  • Shingo Kanaji
    • 1
  • Yoshiko Matsuda
    • 1
  • Kimihiro Yamashita
    • 1
  • Takeru Matsuda
    • 2
  • Taro Oshikiri
    • 1
  • Satoshi Suzuki
    • 3
  • Yoshihiro Kakeji
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Graduate School of MedicineKobe UniversityKobeJapan
  2. 2.Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Graduate School of MedicineKobe UniversityKobeJapan
  3. 3.Division of Community Medicine and Medical Network, Department of Social Community Medicine and Health Science, Graduate School of MedicineKobe UniversityKobeJapan

Personalised recommendations