Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy: initial experience and outcomes

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background:

Although surgical resection currently is the preferred treatment for fit patients with resectable esophageal cancers, it is associated with a relatively high risk of morbidity and significant perioperative mortality. Currently, a range of open surgical approaches are used. More recently, minimally invasive approaches have become feasible, with the potential to reduce perioperative morbidity. This study investigated the outcomes from one such approach.

Methods:

Outcome data were collected prospectively for 36 consecutive patients who underwent a minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. A three-stage approach was used, with all the patients undergoing a thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization, combined with either open or hand-assisted laparoscopic abdominal gastric mobilization, and open cervical anastomosis. An open abdominal approach was used for 15 of the patients and a hand-assisted laparoscopic approach for 21. A total of 34 patients had invasive malignancy, whereas 2 had preinvasive disease. A group of 23 patients (68%) who had invasive malignancies also received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

Results:

The mean operating time ranged from 190 to 360 min (mean, 263 min). The median postoperative hospital stay was 16 days. In-hospital mortality was 5.5% (2/36), and perioperative morbidity was 41%. The perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing an open abdominal approach and those who had hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery were similar. For the patients who underwent a hand-assisted laparoscopic abdominal procedure, the total operating time was shorter (248 vs 281 min), and the blood loss was less (223 vs 440 ml). The median follow-up period was 30 months. The 4-year survival predicted by Kaplan–Meir for the 34 patients with invasive malignancy was 44%.

Conclusion:

The outcome for esophagectomy using thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization, with or without hand-assisted laparoscopic abdominal surgery, was comparable with data from conventional open surgical approaches. These approaches can be performed with an acceptable level of perioperative morbidity. Further application of these techniques, with close scrutiny of outcome data, is appropriate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aly A, Watson DI (2004) Diaphragmatic hernia after minimally invasive esophagectomy. Dis Esoph 17: 183–186

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, Stukel TA, Lucas FL, Batista I, Welch HG, Wennberg DE (2002) Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 346: 1128–1137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bonavina L, Incarbone R, Bona D, Peracchia A (2004) Esophagectomy via laparoscopy and transmediastinal endodissection. J Laparendosc Adv Surg Tech A 14: 13–16

    Google Scholar 

  4. Feith M, Stein HJ, Siewert JR (2003) Pattern of lymphatic spread of Barrett’s cancer. World J Surg 27: 1052–1057

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hulscher JB, van Sandick JW, de Ber AG, Wijnhoven BP, Tijssen JG, Fockens P, Stalmeier PF, ten Kate FJ, van Dekken H, Obertop H, Tilanus HW, van Lanschot JJ (2002) Extended transthoracic resection compared with limited transhiatal resection for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. N Engl J Med 347: 1662–1669

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jamieson GG, Mathew G, Ludemann R, Wayman J, Myers JC, Devitt PG (2004) Postoperative mortality following esophagectomy and problems in reporting its rate. Br J Surg 91: 943–947

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Law S, Wong J (2004) Therapeutic options for esophageal cancer. J Gastrenterol Hepatol 19: 4–12

    Google Scholar 

  8. Luketich JD, Alvelo-Rivera M, Buenaventura PO, Christie NA, McCaughan JS, Litle VR, Schauer PR, Close JM, Fernando HC (2003) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcomes in 222 patients. Ann Surg 238: 486–494

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Luketich JD, Schauer PR, Christie NA, Weigel TL, Raja S, Fernando HC, Keenan RJ, Nguyen NT (2000) Minimally invasive esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 70: 906–911

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Neuhaus SJ, Texler M, Hewett PJ, Watson DI (1998) Port-site metastases following laparoscopic surgery. Br J Surg 85: 735–741

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Nguyen NT, Follette-Wolfe BM (2000) Comparison of minimally invasive esophagectomy with transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy. Arch Surg 135: 920–925

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Nguyen NT, Roberts P, Follette DM, Rivers R, Wolfe BM (2003) Thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy for benign and malignant disease: lessons learned from 46 consecutive procedures. J Am Coll Surg 197: 902–913

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Osugi H, Takemura M, Higashino M, Takada N, Lee S, Kinoshita H (2003) A comparison of video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy and radical lymph node dissection for squamous cell cancer of the esophagus with open operation. Br J Surg 90: 108–113

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rizk NP, Bach PB, Schrag D, Bains MS, Turnbull AD, Karpeh M, Brennan MF, Rusch VW (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 

  15. Smithers BM, Gotley DC, McEwan D, Martin I, Bessell J, Doyle L (2001) Thoracoscopic mobilization of the esophagus: a 6-year experience. Surg Endosc 15: 176–182

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Urschel JD (1995) Esophagogastrostomy anastomotic leaks complicating esophagectomy: a review. Am J Surg 169: 634–640

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Watson DI, Baigrie RJ, Jamieson GG (1996) A learning curve for laparoscopic fundoplication: definable, avoidable, or just a waste of time? Ann Surg 224: 198–203

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Watson DI, Davies N, Jamieson GG (1999) Totally endoscopic Ivor–Lewis esophagectomy. Surg Endosc 13: 293–297

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Watson DI, Jamieson GG, Devitt PG (2000) Endoscopic cervicothoracoabdominal esophagectomy. J Am Coll Surg 190: 372–378

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhang X, Watson DI, Jamieson GG, Lally C, Bessell JR, Devitt PG (2005) Outcome of esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction. ANZ J Surg 75: 513–519

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. I. Watson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martin, D.J., Bessell, J.R., Chew, A. et al. Thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy: initial experience and outcomes. Surg Endosc 19, 1597–1601 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0185-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0185-7

Keywords

Navigation