Advertisement

Minimally Invasive Approach of Gastro-Esophageal Junction Cancer

  • Annelijn E. Slaman
  • Suzanne S. GisbertzEmail author
  • Mark I. van Berge Henegouwen
  • Miguel A. Cuesta
Chapter

Abstract

The short-term advantages of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in terms of less morbidity and better Quality of Life (QoL) in comparison with open esophagectomy (OE) became visible in the last few years. There are two main MIE approaches: a transthoracic resection (TTE; either accompanied by an intrathoracic or cervical anastomosis) or a transhiatal resection (THE; accompanied by a cervical anastomosis). However, controversy about what approach is best for gastro-esophageal junction tumors (GEJ) still exists and the choice of the approach is currently based on the surgeons’ discretion. In this chapter, we describe the indications for each minimally invasive approach for GEJ tumors, the surgical technique, the most common complications and their treatment, our own experiences, patient-survival rates, current developments and problems regarding surgical treatment for patients with cancer of the GEJ.

Supplementary material

Video 10.1

Ivor Lewis esophageal resection with “flap and wrap” anastomosis technique (MP4 768222 kb)

Video 10.2

Esophago-jejunostomy high anastomosis with Orvil device® (MP4 137787 kb)

Video 10.3

Orvil circular stapler esophago-jejunostomy anastomosis (MOV 88708 kb)

Video 10.4

Esophago-jejunostomy side-to-side anastomosis with linear stapler (MP4 141591 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, Rosso S, Coebergh JWW, Comber H, Forman D, Bray F. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:1374–403.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnold M, Soerjomataram I, Ferlay J, Forman D. Global incidence of oesophageal cancer by histological subtype in 2012. Gut. 2015;64:381–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pennathur A, Gibson MK, Jobe BA, Luketich JD. Oesophageal carcinoma. Lancet. 2013;381:400–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rice TW, Blackstone EH, Rusch VW. 7th Edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual: esophagus and esophagogastric junction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1721–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rüdiger Siewert J, Feith M, Werner M, Stein HJ. Adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: results of surgical therapy based on anatomical/topographic classification in 1,002 consecutive patients. Ann Surg. 2000;232:353–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shapiro J, van Lanschot JJB, Hulshof MCCM, et al. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for oesophageal or junctional cancer (CROSS): long-term results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1090–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Hagen P, Hulshof MCCM, van Lanschot JJB, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2074–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Biere SSAY, 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
  9. 9.
    Maas KW, Cuesta MA, Van Berge Henegouwen MI, Roig J, Bonavina L, Rosman C, Gisbertz SS, Biere SSAY, Van Der Peet DL. Quality of life and late complications after minimally invasive compared to open esophagectomy: results of a randomized trial. World J Surg. 2015;39:1986–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Medtronic Inc. Orvil circular stapler. 2013.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Medtronic Inc. V-loc wound closure. 2015.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Hillegersberg R, Seesing MFJ, Brenkman HJF, Ruurda JP. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy. Chirurg. 2016;87:635–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Medtronic Inc. Endo Stitch device. 2008.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parry K, Ruurda JP, van der Sluis PC, van Hillegersberg R. Current status of laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy for esophageal cancer patients: a systematic review of the literature. Dis Esophagus. 2017;30(1):1–7.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Orringer M. Transhiatal esophagectomy without thoracotomy for carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus. Ann Surg. 1984;200:282–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scheepers JJG, Veenhof XAFA, van der Peet DL, van Groeningen C, Mulder C, Meijer S, Cuesta MA. Laparoscopic transhiatal resection for malignancies of the distal esophagus: outcome of the first 50 resected patients. Surgery. 2008;143:278–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Omloo JMT, Lagarde SM, Hulscher JBF, Reitsma JB, Fockens P, van Dekken H, Ten Kate FJW, Obertop H, Tilanus HW, van Lanschot JJB. Extended transthoracic resection compared with limited transhiatal resection for adenocarcinoma of the mid/distal esophagus: five-year survival of a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2007;246:992–1000.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anderegg MCJ, Lagarde SM, Jagadesham VP, et al. Prognostic significance of the location of lymph node metastases in patients with adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. Ann Surg. 2016;264:847–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koen Talsma A, Shapiro J, Looman CWN, van Hagen P, Steyerberg EW, van der Gaast A, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Wijnhoven BPL, van Lanschot JJB. Lymph node retrieval during esophagectomy with and without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Ann Surg. 2014;260:786–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Workum F, van der Maas J, van den Wildenberg F, Polat F, Kouwenhoven EA, van Det MJ, Nieuwenhuijzen G, Luyer MD, Rosman C. Improved functional results after minimally invasive esophagectomy: intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;103(1):267–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Biere SSAY, Maas KW, Cuesta MA, Van Der Peet DL. Cervical or thoracic anastomosis after esophagectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Surg. 2011;28:29–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Markar SR, Arya S, Karthikesalingam A, Hanna GB. Technical factors that affect anastomotic integrity following esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:4274–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haverkamp L, Seesing MFJ, Ruurda JP, Boone J, Hillegersberg RV. Worldwide trends in surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer. Dis Esophagus. 2017;30(1):1–7.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yuan Y, Zeng X, Hu Y, Xie T, Zhao Y. Omentoplasty for oesophagogastrostomy after oesophagectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;11:CD008446.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cuschieri A. Thoracoscopic subtotal oesophagectomy. Endosc Surg Allied Technol. 1994;2(1):21–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wouters MWJM, Karim-Kos HE, le Cessie S, Wijnhoven BPL, Stassen LPS, Steup WH, Tilanus HW, Tollenaar RAEM. Centralization of esophageal cancer surgery: does it improve clinical outcome? Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1789–98.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit. 2015.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Straatman J, van der Wielen N, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, et al. Techniques and short-term outcomes for total minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophageal resection in distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancers: pooled data from six European centers. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(1):119–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O, et al. Outcomes after minimaly invasive esophagectomy: review over 1000 patients. Ann Surg. 2012;256:95–103.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Low D, Alderson D, Cecconello I, et al. International consensus on standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). Ann Surg. 2015;262:286–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Franchetti Y, et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy. Results of a prospective phase II multicenter trial. Ann Surg. 2015;261:702–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annelijn E. Slaman
    • 1
  • Suzanne S. Gisbertz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mark I. van Berge Henegouwen
    • 1
  • Miguel A. Cuesta
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryAcademic Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryVU UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations