Dataset Information

Comparison of Two Circular-Stapled Techniques for Esophageal Cancer: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The optimal technique for the thoracoscopic construction of an intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis continues to be a subject of controversy. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of circular-stapled anastomosis using a transorally inserted anvil (Orvil™) with those of circular-stapled anastomosis using a transthoracically placed anvil (non-Orvil™) in totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (Ivor Lewis TMIE).

Methods

The data of 272 patients who underwent Ivor Lewis TMIE for esophageal cancer at multiple centers were collected from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2017. After propensity score matching (1:1) for patient baseline characteristics, 65 paired cases were selected for statistical analysis. Logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate the significant factors of anastomotic leakage.

Results

In the propensity score-matched analysis, compared with the non-Orvil™ group, the Orvil™ group was associated with a significantly shorter operation time (p=0.031), less intraoperative hemorrhage (p<0.001), lower need for intraoperative transfusions (p=0.009), earlier postoperative oral feeding time (p=0.010), longer chest tube duration (p<0.001), shorter postoperative hospital stays (p=0.001), lower total hospitalization costs (p<0.001) and a lower postoperative anastomotic leakage rate (p=0.033). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that anastomotic technique and pulmonary infection were independent factors for the development of postoperative anastomotic leakage (p< 0.05).

Conclusions

Orvil™ anastomosis exhibited better perioperative effects than non-Orvil™ anastomosis after the propensity score-matched analysis. Remarkably, the Orvil™ technique contributed to a lower postoperative anastomotic leakage rate than the non-Orvil™ technique.

SUBMITTER: Lin H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8716395 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) reduces postoperative respiratory complications and enables meticulous mediastinal lymphadenectomy. However, whether adding a robotic abdominal procedure to a robotic thoracic procedure can result in better outcomes is unclear. We examined outcomes after total-RAMIE (T-RAMIE) and compared them with the outcomes after hybrid-RAMIE (H-RAMIE). Methods:Total of 227 patients who underwent robotic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer were included. T-RAMIE was defined as esophagectomy performed robotically in both the thoracic and abdominal cavities. Laparotomy was used instead of the robotic procedure in H-RAMIE. T-RAMIE was performed in 144 patients (63.4%), and propensity score matching produced 49 matched pairs from each group. Early and long-term clinical outcomes between the two groups were compared. Results:T-RAMIE was mostly performed for upper or mid-thoracic squamous cell carcinoma (n=119, 82.6%) and cervical anastomosis, and three-field lymphadenectomy was performed in 113 (78.5%) and 54 (37.5%) patients, respectively. One laparotomy conversion was necessary because of severe obesity. The propensity-matched analysis demonstrated that T-RAMIE showed a comparable 90-day mortality rate with H-RAMIE (0% vs. 6.1%, P=0.083). The incidence rates of total (63.3% vs. 63.3%; P=1.000), abdominal (8.2% vs. 14.3%; P=0.366), and respiratory complications (10.2% vs. 10.2%; P=1.000) were not different between two groups. The number of harvested abdominal lymph nodes was similar (12.4±9.0 vs. 12.3±8.9; P=0.992). Median follow-up duration for T-RAMIE and H-RAMIE was 16.3 and 23.5 months, respectively. Two-year overall survival rate (86.2% in T-RAMIE vs. 77.6% in H-RAMIE; P=0.150) and recurrence-free survival (76.6% in T-RAMIE vs. 62.2% in H-RAMIE; P=0.280) were comparable between the two groups. Conclusions:In this matched analysis, T-RAMIE and H-RAMIE showed comparable early outcomes and long-term survival. The low tendencies of early mortality and conversion rate of T-RAMIE suggest that it might be a safe alternative to open stomach mobilization and abdominal lymphadenectomy.

Project description:BackgroundThe primary aim of this study was to compare survival from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery (NCRS) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery (NCS) for the treatment of esophageal or junctional adenocarcinoma. The secondary aims were to compare pathological effects, short-term mortality and morbidity, and to evaluate the effect of lymph node harvest upon survival in both treatment groups.MethodsData were collected from 10 European centers from 2001 to 2012. Six hundred and eight patients with stage II or III oesophageal or oesophago-gastric junctional adenocarcinoma were included; 301 in the NCRS group and 307 in the NCS group. Propensity score matching and Cox regression analyses were used to compensate for differences in baseline characteristics.ResultsNCRS resulted in significant pathological benefits with more ypT0 (26.7% versus 5%; P < 0.001), more ypN0 (63.3% versus 32.1%; P < 0.001), and reduced R1/2 resection margins (7.7% versus 21.8%; P < 0.001). Analysis of short-term outcomes showed no statistically significant differences in 30-day or 90-day mortality, but increased incidence of anastomotic leak (23.1% versus 6.8%; P < 0.001) in NCRS patients. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in 3-year overall survival (57.9% versus 53.4%; Hazard Ratio (HR)= 0.89, 95%C.I. 0.67-1.17, P = 0.391) nor disease-free survival (52.9% versus 48.9%; HR = 0.90, 95%C.I. 0.69-1.18, P = 0.443). The pattern of recurrence was also similar (P = 0.660). There was a higher lymph node harvest in the NCS group (27 versus 14; P < 0.001), which was significantly associated with a lower recurrence rate and improved disease free survival within the NCS group.ConclusionThe survival differences between NCRS and NCS maybe modest, if present at all, for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal or junctional adenocarcinoma. Future large-scale randomized trials must control and monitor indicators of the quality of surgery, as the extent of lymphadenectomy appears to influence prognosis in patients treated with NCS, from this large multi-center European study.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Randomized trials support the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of aortic stenosis in high- and intermediate-risk patients, but the generalizability of those results in clinical practice has been challenged. OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), particularly in intermediate- and high-risk patients, in a nationally representative real-world cohort. METHODS:Using data from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry and Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database linked to Medicare administrative claims for follow-up, 9,464 propensity-matched intermediate- and high-risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score ?3%) U.S. patients who underwent commercial TAVR or SAVR were examined. Death, stroke, and days alive and out of the hospital to 1 year were compared, as well as discharge home, with subgroup analyses by surgical risk, demographics, and comorbidities. RESULTS:In a propensity-matched cohort (median age 82 years, 48% women, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score 5.6%), TAVR and SAVR patients experienced no difference in 1-year rates of death (17.3% vs. 17.9%; hazard ratio: 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83 to 1.04) and stroke (4.2% vs. 3.3%; hazard ratio: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.47), and no difference was observed in the proportion of days alive and out of the hospital to 1 year (rate ratio: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.02). However, TAVR patients were more likely to be discharged home after treatment (69.9% vs. 41.2%; odds ratio: 3.19; 95% CI: 2.84 to 3.58). Results were consistent across most subgroups, including among intermediate- and high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS:Among unselected intermediate- and high-risk patients, TAVR and SAVR resulted in similar rates of death, stroke, and DAOH to 1 year, but TAVR patients were more likely to be discharged home.