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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 1/2018

01-01-2018

A standardized comparison of peri-operative complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy: Ivor Lewis versus McKeown

Authors: Andrew M. Brown, Michael J. Pucci, Adam C. Berger, Talar Tatarian, Nathaniel R. Evans III, Ernest L. Rosato, Francesco Palazzo

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

While our institutional approach to esophageal resection for cancer has traditionally favored a minimally invasive (MI) 3-hole, McKeown esophagectomy (MIE 3-hole) during the last five years several factors has determined a shift in our practice with an increasing number of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis (MIE IL) resections being performed. We compared peri-operative outcomes of the two procedures, hypothesizing that MIE IL would be less morbid in the peri-operative setting compared to MIE 3-hole.

Methods

Our institution’s IRB-approved esophageal database was queried to identify all patients who underwent totally MI esophagectomy (MIE IL vs. MIE 3-hole) from June 2011 to May 2016. Patient demographics, preoperative and peri-operative data, as well as post-operative complications were compared between the two groups. Post-operative complications were analyzed using the Clavien-Dindo classification system.

Results

There were 110 patients who underwent totally MI esophagectomy (MIE IL n = 49 [45%], MIE 3-hole n = 61 [55%]). The majority of patients were men (n = 91, 83%) with a median age of 62.5 (range 31–83). Preoperative risk stratifiers such as ECOG score, ASA, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were not significantly different between groups. Anastomotic leak rate was 2.0% in the MIE IL group compared to 6.6% in the MIE 3-hole group (p = 0.379). The rate of serious (Clavien-Dindo 3, 4, or 5) post-operative complications was significantly less in the MIE IL group (34.7 vs. 59.0%, p = 0.013). Serious pulmonary complications were not significantly different (16.3 vs. 26.2%, p = 0.251) between the two groups.

Conclusions

In this cohort, totally MIE IL showed significantly less severe peri-operative morbidity than MIE 3-hole, but similar rates of serious pulmonary complications and anastomotic leaks. These findings confirm the safety of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomies for esophageal cancer when oncologically and clinically appropriate. Minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy remains a satisfactory and appropriate option when clinically indicated.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Sihag S, Kosinski AS, Gaissert HA, Wright CD, Schipper PH (2016) Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a comparison of early surgical outcomes from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. Ann Thorac Surg 101:1281–1288 discussion 1288–1289 CrossRefPubMed
4.
Dallemagne B, Weerts JM, Jehaes C, Markiewicz S, Lombard R (1991) Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication: preliminary report. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1:138–143PubMed
5.
Cuschieri A (1994) Thoracoscopic subtotal oesophagectomy. Endosc Surg Allied Technol 2:21–25PubMed
6.
Pennathur A, Luketich JD (2012) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: short-term outcomes appear comparable to open esophagectomy. Ann Surg 255:206–207CrossRefPubMed
7.
Palazzo F, Rosato EL, Chaudhary A, Evans NR, Sendecki JA, Keith S, Chojnacki KA, Yeo CJ, Berger AC (2015) Minimally invasive esophagectomy provides significant survival advantage compared with open or hybrid esophagectomy for patients with cancers of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. J Am Coll Surg 220:672–679CrossRefPubMed
8.
Singh RK, Pham TH, Diggs BS, Perkins S, Hunter JG (2011) Minimally invasive esophagectomy provides equivalent oncologic outcomes to open esophagectomy for locally advanced (stage II or III) esophageal carcinoma. Arch Surg 146:711–714CrossRefPubMed
9.
Berger AC, Bloomenthal A, Weksler B, Evans N, Chojnacki KA, Yeo CJ, Rosato EL (2011) Oncologic efficacy is not compromised, and may be improved with minimally invasive esophagectomy. J Am Coll Surg 212:560–566 discussion 566–568 CrossRefPubMed
10.
Giugliano DN, Berger AC, Rosato EL, Palazzo F (2016) Total minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: approaches and outcomes. Langenbecks Arch Surg 401:747–756CrossRefPubMed
11.
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 discussion 494–495 PubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O, Levy RM, Keeley S, Shende M, Christie NA, Weksler B, Landreneau RJ, Abbas G, Schuchert MJ, Nason KS (2012) Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg 256:95–103CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Palanivelu C, Prakash A, Senthilkumar R, Senthilnathan P, Parthasarathi R, Rajan PS, Venkatachlam S (2006) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: thoracoscopic mobilization of the esophagus and mediastinal lymphadenectomy in prone position–experience of 130 patients. J Am Coll Surg 203:7–16CrossRefPubMed
14.
Tapias LF, Mathisen DJ, Wright CD, Wain JC, Gaissert HA, Muniappan A, Lanuti M, Donahue DM, Morse CR (2016) Outcomes With open and minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy after neoadjuvant therapy. Ann Thorac Surg 101:1097–1103CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zhai C, Liu Y, Li W, Xu T, Yang G, Lu H, Hu D (2015) A comparison of short-term outcomes between Ivor-Lewis and McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy. J Thorac Dis 7:2352–2358PubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW, Bonavina L, Rosman C, Garcia JR, Gisbertz SS, Klinkenbijl JH, Hollmann MW, de Lange ES, Bonjer HJ, van der Peet DL, Cuesta MA (2012) Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesphageal cancer: a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Lancet 379:1887–1892CrossRefPubMed
17.
Straatman J, van der Wielen N, Cuesta MA, Daams F, Roig Garcia J, Bonavina L, Rosman C, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS, van der Peet DL (2017) Minimally invasive versus open esophageal resection: three-year follow-up of the previously reported randomized controlled trial: the time trial. Ann Surg. doi:10.​1097/​SLA.​0000000000002171​ PubMed
18.
Briez N, Piessen G, Bonnetain F, Brigand C, Carrere N, Collet D, Doddoli C, Flamein R, Mabrut JY, Meunier B, Msika S, Perniceni T, Peschaud F, Prudhomme F, Triboulet JP, Mariette C (2011) Open versus laparoscopically-assisted oesophagectomy for cancer: a multicenter randomized controlled phase III trial: the MIRO trial. BMC Cancer 11:310CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Palazzo F, Evans NR, Rosato EL (2013) Minimally invasive esophagectomy with extracorporeal gastric conduit creation: how I do it. J Gastrointest Surg 17:1683–1688CrossRefPubMed
20.
Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A (2009) AJCC cancer staging manual. Springer, New York
21.
Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, McFadden ET, Carbone PP (1982) Toxicity and response criteria of the eastern cooperative oncology group. Am J Clin Oncol 5:649–655CrossRefPubMed
22.
Cullen DJ, Apolone G, Greenfield S, Guadagnoli E, Cleary P (1994) ASA Physical Status and age predict morbidity after three surgical procedures. Ann Surg 220:3–9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383CrossRefPubMed
24.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Levy RM, Trivedi D, Luketich JD (2012) Minimally invasive esophagectomy. Surg Clin N Am 92:1265–1285CrossRefPubMed
26.
Sutton CD, White SA, Marshall LJ, Berry DP, Veitch PS (2002) Endoscopic-assisted intrathoracic oesophagogastrostomy without thoracotomy for tumours of the lower oesophagus and cardia. Eur J Surg Oncol 28:46–48CrossRefPubMed
27.
Giugliano DN, Berger AC, Meidl H, Pucci MJ, Rosato EL, Keith SW, Evans NR, Palazzo F (2017) Do intraoperative pyloric interventions predict the need for postoperative endoscopic interventions after minimally invasive esophagectomy? Dis Esophagus. doi:10.​1093/​dote/​dow034 PubMed
28.
Straatman J, van der Wielen N, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, Rosman C, Roig J, Scheepers JJ, Cuesta MA, Luyer MD, van Berge Henegouwen MI, van Workum F, Gisbertz SS, van der Peet DL (2017) Techniques and short-term outcomes for total minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophageal resection in distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancers: pooled data from six European centers. Surg Endosc 31:119–126CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zhang J, Wang R, Liu S, Luketich JD, Chen S, Chen H, Schuchert MJ (2012) Refinement of minimally invasive esophagectomy techniques after 15 years of experience. J Gastrointest Surg 16:1768–1774CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A standardized comparison of peri-operative complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy: Ivor Lewis versus McKeown
Authors
Andrew M. Brown
Michael J. Pucci
Adam C. Berger
Talar Tatarian
Nathaniel R. Evans III
Ernest L. Rosato
Francesco Palazzo
Publication date
01-01-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 1/2018
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5660-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Surgical Endoscopy 1/2018 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

A novel endoscopic surgery for dysphagia after stroke

Video

Laparoscopic revision of Billroth II with Braun anastomosis into Roux-en-Y anatomy in a patient with intestinal malrotation

OriginalPaper

Routine versus selective upper gastrointestinal contrast series after omental patch repair for gastric or duodenal perforation

OriginalPaper

Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block versus thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) in laparoscopic colon surgery in the ERAS program

White Paper

ASGE EndoVators Summit: defining the role and value of endoscopic therapies in obesity management

OriginalPaper

Passing the fundamentals of endoscopic surgery (FES) exam: linking specialty choice and attitudes about endoscopic surgery to success