Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 10/2016

01-10-2016

Factors influencing difficulty of the thoracic procedure in minimally invasive esophagectomy

Authors: Akihiko Okamura, Masayuki Watanabe, Shinji Mine, Koujiro Nishida, Yu Imamura, Takanori Kurogochi, Yuko Kitagawa, Takeshi Sano

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 10/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is being increasingly performed worldwide. When performing MIE, we sometimes experienced difficulties due to a narrow upper mediastinum or a middle to lower thoracic esophagus hidden by the projection of the vertebral body. However, there were no reports regarding the influence of anatomical factors on the difficulty of performing MIE. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether anatomical factors could be related to the difficulty of the thoracic procedure in MIE.

Methods

We investigated 87 consecutive patients undergoing MIE for primary esophageal cancer between 2013 and 2015 and created novel indices to assess the upper mediastinal narrowness and vertebral body projection at middle thoracic part on preoperative computed tomography images. We assessed clinicopathological and anatomical factors and determined the factors influencing the thoracic procedural difficulty in MIE. The thoracic procedure duration was selected as the variable representing technical difficulty.

Results

The mean thoracic procedure duration was 280.2 ± 52.5 min. There were no significant correlations between the indices and patient factors such as age, sex, and body mass index. Meanwhile, there was a significant correlation between the upper mediastinal narrowness and the vertebral body projection (p < 0.01). Of the clinicopathological and anatomical factors, blood loss during the thoracic procedure, thoracic duct resection, and vertebral body projection independently were related to the prolonged thoracic procedure duration in multiple linear regression analysis (p = 0.01, 0.03, and <0.01, respectively). The other factors including upper mediastinal narrowness were not statistically significant.

Conclusions

This is the first study to reveal the influence of anatomical factors on the difficulty of the thoracic procedure in MIE. The vertebral body projection at middle thoracic part appears to be a useful tool for predicting the thoracic procedural difficulty in MIE preoperatively.
Literature
1.
Cuschieri A, Shimi S, Banting S (1992) Endoscopic oesophagectomy through a right thoracoscopic approach. J R Coll Surg Edinb 37:7–11PubMed
2.
Watanabe M, Baba Y, Nagai Y, Baba H (2013) Minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: an updated review. Surg Today 43:237–244CrossRefPubMed
3.
Takeuchi H, Miyata H, Gotoh M, Kitagawa Y, Baba H, Kimura W et al (2014) A risk model for esophagectomy using data of 5354 patients included in a Japanese nationwide web-based database. Ann Surg 260:259–266CrossRefPubMed
4.
Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW, Bonavina L, Rosman C, Garcia JR et al (2012) Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 379:1887–1892CrossRefPubMed
5.
Takeuchi H, Kawakubo H, Kitagawa Y (2013) Current status of minimally invasive esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 61:513–521CrossRefPubMed
6.
Kawakubo H, Takeuchi H, Kitagawa Y (2013) Current status and future perspectives on minimally invasive esophagectomy. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 46:241–248CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Baik SH, Kim NK, Lee KY, Sohn SK, Cho CH, Kim MJ et al (2008) Factors influencing pathologic results after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: analysis of consecutive 100 cases. Ann Surg Oncol 15:721–728CrossRefPubMed
8.
Akiyoshi T, Kuroyanagi H, Oya M, Konishi T, Fukuda M, Fujimoto Y et al (2009) Surgery 46:483–489CrossRef
9.
Kim JY, Kim YW, Kim NK, Hur H, Lee K, Min BS et al (2011) Pelvic anatomy as a factor in laparoscopic rectal surgery: a prospective study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 21:334–339PubMed
10.
Shinozaki K, Ajiki T, Okazaki T, Ueno K, Matsumoto T, Ohtsubo I et al (2013) Gallbladder bed pocket score as a preoperative measure for assessing the difficulty of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Asian J Endosc Surg 6:285–291CrossRefPubMed
11.
Mamidanna R, Bottle A, Aylin P, Faiz O, Hanna GB (2012) Short-term outcomes following open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer in England: a population-based national study. Ann Surg 255:197–203CrossRefPubMed
12.
Haga Y, Beppu T, Doi K, Nozawa F, Mugita N, Ikei S et al (1997) Systemic inflammatory response syndrome and organ dysfunction following gastrointestinal surgery. Crit Care Med 25:1994–2000CrossRefPubMed
13.
Okamura A, Takeuchi H, Matsuda S, Ogura M, Miyasho T, Nakamura R et al (2015) Factors affecting cytokine change after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 22:3130–3135CrossRefPubMed
14.
Sato N, Endo S, Kimura Y, Ikeda K, Aoki K, Iwaya T et al (2002) Influence of a human protease inhibitor on surgical stress induced immunosuppression. Dig Surg 19:300–305CrossRefPubMed
15.
Ogawa K, Hirai M, Katsube T, Murayama M, Hamaguchi K, Shimakawa T et al (2000) Suppression of cellular immunity by surgical stress. Surgery 127:329–336CrossRefPubMed
16.
Shakhar G, Ben-Eliyahu S (2003) Potential prophylactic measures against postoperative immunosuppression: could they reduce recurrence rates in oncological patients? Ann Surg Oncol 10:972–992CrossRefPubMed
17.
Hogan BV, Peter MB, Shenoy HG, Horgan K, Hughes TA (2011) Surgery induced immunosuppression. Surgeon 9:38–43CrossRefPubMed
18.
Ogiso S, Yamaguchi T, Hata H, Kuroyanagi H, Sakai Y (2010) Introduction of laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer early during residency: a single institutional study on short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 24:2822–2829CrossRefPubMed
19.
Kelly M, Bhangu A, Singh P, Fitzgerald JE, Tekkis PP (2014) Systematic review and meta-analysis of trainee- versus expert surgeon-performed colorectal resection. Br J Surg 101:750–759CrossRefPubMed
20.
Palanivelu C, Prakash A, Senthilkumar R, Senthilnathan P, Parthasarathi R, Rajan PS et al (2006) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: thoracoscopic mobilization of the esophagus and mediastinal lymphadenectomy in prone position–experience of 130 patients. J Am Coll Surg 203(1):7–16CrossRefPubMed
21.
Fabian T, Martin J, Katigbak M, McKelvey AA, Federico JA (2008) Thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization during minimally invasive esophagectomy: a head-to-head comparison of prone versus decubitus positions. Surg Endosc 22:2485–2491CrossRefPubMed
22.
Kaburagi T, Takeuchi H, Kawakubo H, Omori T, Ozawa S, Kitagawa Y (2014) Clinical utility of a novel hybrid position combining the left lateral decubitus and prone positions during thoracoscopic esophagectomy. World J Surg 38:410–418CrossRefPubMed
23.
Higashihara E, Baba S, Nakagawa K, Murai M, Go H, Takeda M et al (1998) Learning curve and conversion to open surgery in cases of laparoscopic adrenalectomy and nephrectomy. J Urol 159:650–653CrossRefPubMed
24.
Ogiso S, Yamaguchi T, Hata H, Fukuda M, Ikai I, Yamato T et al (2011) Evaluation of factors affecting the difficulty of laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer: “narrow pelvis” is not a contraindication. Surg Endosc 25:1907–1912CrossRefPubMed
25.
Doyle GJ, Simpson W (1994) Technical report: prone scanning in the CT assessment of oesophageal carcinoma. Clin Radiol 49:209–210CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Factors influencing difficulty of the thoracic procedure in minimally invasive esophagectomy
Authors
Akihiko Okamura
Masayuki Watanabe
Shinji Mine
Koujiro Nishida
Yu Imamura
Takanori Kurogochi
Yuko Kitagawa
Takeshi Sano
Publication date
01-10-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 10/2016
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4743-3

Other articles of this Issue 10/2016

Surgical Endoscopy 10/2016 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

A national evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes in open versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery

OriginalPaper

Incisional hernias after open versus laparoscopic surgery for colonic cancer: a nationwide cohort study

Review

Systematic review on the effectiveness of augmented reality applications in medical training

OriginalPaper

Laparoscopic versus open surgical management of small bowel obstruction: an analysis of clinical outcomes

OriginalPaper

When is mesh fixation in TAPP-repair of primary inguinal hernia repair necessary? The register-based analysis of 11,230 cases

Erratum

Erratum to: Laparoscopic splenectomy is a better surgical approach for spleen-relevant disorders: a comprehensive meta-analysis based on 15-year literatures