Abstract: Objective To evaluate the feasibility and safety of combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic esophagectomy and intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis for the treatment of esophageal cancer. Methods We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of 40 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy in Beijing Chaoyang Hospital of Capital Medical University from March 2010 to March 2012. All the 40 patients were divided into 2 groups according to their different surgical approach， including 22 patients who underwent combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic esophagectomy and intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis （minimally invasive surgery group） and 18 patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy （open surgery group）. Operation time， intra-operative blood loss， lymph node dissection， postoperative morbidity， hospital stay and cost were compared between the two groups. Results The hospitalcost of minimally invasive surgery group was significantly higher than that of open surgery group ［（78 181.5±8 958.8） yuan vs. （61 717.2±35 159.4） yuan， Z=4.078，P=0.000］ . There was no statistical difference in operation time ［（292.0±74.8） min vs. （256.1±41.0） min， t=1.838，P=0.074］， intra-operative blood loss ［（447.7±597.0） ml vs. （305.6±125.9） ml， Z=0.401，P=0.688］， total number of dissected lymph nodes （230 vs. 215， t=1.714，P=0.095）， postoperative morbidity ［22.7% （5/22） vs. 33.3% （6/18）， χ2=0.559，P=0.498］， time to resume oral intake ［（8.5±3.5） d vs. （11.1±9.6） d，t=1.202，P=0.237］， and postoperative hospital stay ［（11.6±5.7） d vs. （13.3±9.4） d， t=0.680， P=0.501）］ between the two groups. The minimally invasive surgery group was further divided into two subgroups according to operation date， including 10 patients in the early stage subgroup and 12 patients in the later stage subgroup. The operation time of the later stage subgroup was significantly shorter than that of the early stage subgroup ［（262.9±64.9） min vs. （327.5±73.0） min， t=2.197， P=0.040］， but not statistically different from that of the open surgery group ［（262.9±64.9） min vs. （256.1 ±41.0） min， t=0.353， P=0.727］. Intra-operative blood loss of the later stage subgroup was significantly reduced compared with those of the early stage subgroup ［（220.8±149.9） ml vs. （720.0±808.0） ml， Z=3.279， P=0.001)］ and the open surgery group ［（220.8±149.9）ml vs. （305.6±125.9） ml， Z=2.089， P=0.037）］. Conclusion Combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic esophagectomy and intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis is a safe and effective surgical procedure for the treatment of esophageal cancer.
ObjectiveTo explore the feasibility of CORFLO feeding tube in enternal nutrition after video-assisted thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy for esophageal cancer and cardiac adenocarcinoma. MethodsA total of 107 patients with esophageal cancer and cardiac adenocarcinoma undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy or resection of cardiac adenocarcinoma in our department between October 2014 and January 2016 were enrolled, among whom 10 patients received jejunostomy and 97 patients (60 males, 37 females, median age of 66 years, range, 47-75 years) received the insertion of CORFLO feeding tubes. ResultsIn 97 cases with insertion of feeding tubes, median insertion time was 7 (3-11) min and median depth was 83 (75-90) cm. The first-attempt success rate during the operation was 77.3% (75/97), and the second attempt at the bedside postoperatively was successful in 8 cases. The overall success rate was 85.6% (83/97). Insertion was successful in 77 esophageal cancer patients and 6 cardiac adenocarcinoma patients. Conclusion Blind insertion of CORFLO feeding tube in video-assisted thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy for esophageal cancer and cardiac adenocarcinoma is feasible and safe. This noninvasive method is simple, effective and repeatable.
ObjectiveTo compare the short-term outcomes between Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and McKeown esophagectomy under thoracoscopy and laparoscopy for thoracic middle-lower esophageal carcinoma and to investigate the optimal approach.MethodsThe relevant literatures (from database foundation to March 2016) comparing minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy were searched through PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang Data and VIP. RevMan 5.3 software was used for data analysis.ResultsA total of 870 patients in 5 studies were reviewed and data were pooled for analysis. The score of Newcastle Ottawa for the literatures was 7-8 points. The results showed that compared with the McKeown group, Ivor Lewis group had shorter operation time (WMD=–34.67, 95% CI –53.70 to –15.65, P=0.000 4), less recurrent laryngeal nerve injuries (OR=0.23, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.44, P<0.000 01), anastomotic leakage (OR=0.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.41, P<0.000 01), anastomotic stenosis (OR=0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.55, P=0.000 01), and pulmonary complications ( OR=0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.43, P<0.000 01). There was no significant difference between the two groups in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative stay, hospitalization cost and chylothorax incidence. The McKeown group was associated with much more lymph nodes dissection (WMD=–1.16, 95% CI –2.00 to –0.31,P=0.007) than the Ivor Lewis group.ConclusionCompared with McKeown esophagectomy combined with thoracoscopy and laparoscopy, Ivor Lewis esophagectomy combined with thoracoscopy and laparoscopy has some advantages for thoracic middle-lower esophageal carcinoma, but a greater number of lymph nodes are dissected in McKeown procedure.
Objective To evaluate the effects of robot-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (RAILE) in surgical treatment of esophageal cancer. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 70 patients diagnosed with mid-lower esophageal cancer undergoing RAILE in the Department of Thoracic Surgery in Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University between May 2015 and April 2018. There were 54 males and 16 females at average age of 62.0±7.6 years. Forty patients underwent circular end-to-end stapled intrathoracic anastomosis and 30 had a double-layered, completely hand-sewn intrathoracic anastomosis. Results The mean operating time was 308.7±60.6 minutes. And blood loss was 190.0±95.1 ml. There were 2 patients who underwent conversion to thoracotomy. There was no in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Overall complications were observed in 24 patients (34.3%), of whom 6 patients (8.6%) had anastomotic leakage. The median length of hospitalization was 9.0 (interquartile range, IQR, 5.0) days. The mean tumor size was 3.2±1.5 cm, and R0 resection was achieved in all patients. The mean number of totally dissected lymph nodes was 19.3±8.7. Conclusion RAILE is safe and technically feasible with satisfactory perioperative outcomes.
Objective To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of thoraco-laparoscopy combined with Ivor Lewis surgery versus thoraco-laparoscopy combined with McKeown surgery in the treatment of esophageal carcinoma. MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang database, VIP database and CNKI were searched by computer for the relevant literature comparing the efficacy and safety of Ivor Lewis surgery and McKeown surgery in the treatment of esophageal carcinoma from inception to January 2022. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of cohort studies, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled studies. Review Manager 5.4 software was utilized to perform a meta-analysis of the literature. ResultsA total of 33 articles were included, which consisted of 26 retrospective cohort studies, 3 prospective cohort studies and 4 randomized controlled trials. There were 11 518 patients in total, including 5 454 patients receiving Ivor Lewis surgery and 6064 patients receiving McKeown surgery. NOS score was≥7 points. Meta-analysis showed that, in comparison to the McKeown surgery, the Ivor Lewis surgery had shorter operative time (MD=–19.61, 95%CI –30.20 to –9.02, P<0.001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD=–1.15, 95%CI –1.43 to –0.87, P<0.001), lower mortality rate during hospitalization or 30 days postoperatively (OR=0.37, 95%CI 0.20 to 0.71, P=0.003), and lower incidence of total postoperative complications (OR=0.36, 95%CI 0.27 to 0.49, P<0.001). The McKeown surgery had an advantage in terms of the number of lymph nodes dissected (MD=–1.25, 95%CI –2.03 to –0.47, P=0.002), postoperative extubation time (MD=0.78, 95%CI 0.37 to 1.19, P<0.001) and 6-month postoperative recurrence rate (OR=1.83, 95%CI 1.41 to 2.39, P<0.001). The differences between the two surgeries were not statistically significant in terms of intraoperative bleeding, postoperative 1 year-, 3 year- and 5 year-overall survival (OS), and impaired gastric emptying (P>0.05). ConclusionCompared with McKeown surgery, Ivor Lewis surgery has shorter operative time, shorter postoperative hospital stay, lower mortality rate during hospitalization or 30 days postoperatively and lower incidence of total postoperative complications. However, in terms of the number of lymph nodes dissected, postoperative extubation time and 6-month postoperative recurrence rate, McKeown surgery has advantages. Both surgeries have comparable results in terms of intraoperative bleeding, postoperative 1 year-, 3 year- and 5 year-OS, and impaired gastric emptying.