Dataset Information

Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy-Surgical Technique and Results.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) has been proven to be superior when compared with open esophagectomy, with a significant reduction of postoperative morbidity. In HMIE, the laparotomy is replaced by a minimally invasive laparoscopic approach. The radical mediastinal resection plus reconstruction is performed by a thoracic approach through a muscle-sparing thoracotomy. In this instructional article, we describe the surgical technique of HMIE in detail in order to facilitate possible adoption of the procedure by other surgeons. In addition, we give the monocentric results of our own practice. METHODS:Between 2013 and 2018, HMIE was performed in 157 patients. The morbidity and mortality data of the procedure is shown in a retrospective monocentric analysis. RESULTS:Overall, 54% of patients had at least one perioperative complication. Anastomotic leak was evident in 1.9%, and a single patient had focal conduit necrosis of the gastric pull-up. Postoperative pulmonary morbidity was 31%. Pneumonia was found in 17%. The 90 day mortality was 2.5%. Wound infection rate was 3%, and delayed gastric emptying occurred in 17% of patients. In follow up, 12.7% presented with diaphragmatic herniation of the bowel, requiring laparoscopic hernia reduction and hiatal reconstruction and colopexy several months after surgery. CONCLUSION:HMIE is a highly reliable technique, not only for the resection part but especially in terms of safety in reconstruction and anastomosis. For esophageal surgeons with experience in minimally invasive anti-reflux procedures and obesity surgery, HMIE is easy and fast to learn and adopt.

SUBMITTER: Kuvendjiska J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6678699 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy-Surgical Technique and Results.

Kuvendjiska Jasmina J Marjanovic Goran G Glatz Torben T Kulemann Birte B Hoeppner Jens J

Journal of clinical medicine 20190705 7

<h4>Background</h4>Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) has been proven to be superior when compared with open esophagectomy, with a significant reduction of postoperative morbidity. In HMIE, the laparotomy is replaced by a minimally invasive laparoscopic approach. The radical mediastinal resection plus reconstruction is performed by a thoracic approach through a muscle-sparing thoracotomy. In this instructional article, we describe the surgical technique of HMIE in detail in order to ...[more]

PMID: 31284370

Similar Datasets

Project description:Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing HMIE with TMIE. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles comparing HMIE and TMIE were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. The primary outcome was pneumonia. Sensitivity analysis was performed by analyzing outcome for open chest hybrid MIE versus total TMIE and open abdomen MIE versus TMIE separately. Therefore, subgroup analysis was performed for laparoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, thoracoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, Ivor Lewis HMIE versus Ivor Lewis TMIE, and McKeown HMIE versus McKeown TMIE. There were no randomized controlled trials. Twenty-nine studies with a total of 3732 patients were included. Studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. In the main analysis, the pooled incidence of pneumonia was 19.0% after HMIE and 9.8% after TMIE which was not significantly different between the groups (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97-2.20). TMIE was associated with a lower incidence of wound infections (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.13-2.90) and less blood loss (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.34-1.22) but with longer operative time (SMD:-0.33, 95% CI: -0.59--0.08). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy-assisted HMIE was associated with a higher lymph node count than TMIE, and Ivor Lewis HMIE was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate than Ivor Lewis TMIE. In general, TMIE was associated with moderately lower morbidity compared to HMIE, but randomized controlled evidence is lacking. The higher leakage rate and lower lymph node count that was found after TMIE in sensitivity analysis indicate that TMIE can also have disadvantages. The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully by surgeons when moving from HMIE to TMIE.

Project description:ImportanceAvailable data comparing the long-term results of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) with that of open esophagectomy are conflicting, with similar or even better results reported for the minimally invasive esophagectomy group.ObjectiveTo evaluate the long-term, 5-year outcomes of HMIE vs open esophagectomy, including overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and pattern of disease recurrence, and the potential risk factors associated with these outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial is a post hoc follow-up study that analyzes the results of the open-label Multicentre Randomized Controlled Phase III Trial, which enrolled patients from 13 different centers in France and was conducted from October 26, 2009, to April 4, 2012. Eligible patients were 18 to 75 years of age and were diagnosed with resectable cancer of the middle or lower third of the esophagus. After exclusions, patients were randomized to either the HMIE group or the open esophagectomy group. Data analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis from November 19, 2019, to December 4, 2020.InterventionsHybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (laparoscopic gastric mobilization with open right thoracotomy) was compared with open esophagectomy.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end points of this follow-up study were 5-year OS and DFS. The secondary end points were the site of disease recurrence and potential risk factors associated with DFS and OS.ResultsA total of 207 patients were randomized, of whom 175 were men (85%), and the median (range) age was 61 (23-78) years. The median follow-up duration was 58.2 (95% CI, 56.5-63.8) months. The 5-year OS was 59% (95% CI, 48%-68%) in the HMIE group and 47% (95% CI, 37%-57%) in the open esophagectomy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.48-1.06). The 5-year DFS was 52% (95% CI, 42%-61%) in the HMIE group vs 44% (95% CI, 34%-53%) in the open esophagectomy group (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.55-1.17). No statistically significant difference in recurrence rate or location was found between groups. In a multivariable analysis, major intraoperative and postoperative complications (HR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.41-3.45; P < .001) and major pulmonary complications (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.21-3.10; P = .005) were identified as risk factors associated with decreased OS. Similarly, multivariable analysis of DFS identified overall intraoperative and postoperative complications (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.28-2.90; P = .002) and major pulmonary complications (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.19-2.86; P = .006) as risk factors.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found no difference in long-term survival between the HMIE and open esophagectomy groups. Major postoperative overall complications and pulmonary complications appeared to be independent risk factors in decreased OS and DFS, providing additional evidence that HMIE may be associated with improved oncological results compared with open esophagectomy primarily because of a reduction in postoperative complications.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00937456.

Dataset Information

Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy-Surgical Technique and Results.

Publications

Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy-Surgical Technique and Results.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets