Search

Background: Anastomotic leak after esophagectomy carries important short- and long-term sequelae. The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine its association with surgical volume. Materials and methods: A systematic literature review was performed to identify all studies reporting on anastomotic leak after esophagectomy. Studies with less than 100 cases were excluded. The primary outcome was postesophagectomy anastomotic leak, while secondary outcomes were operative mortality overall and after anastomotic leak. Pooled event rates (PER) were calculated, and the association with annual esophagectomy volume by center was investigated. Results: Of the 3932 retrieved articles, 472 were included (n= 177 566 patients). The PER of anastomotic leak was 8.91% [95% CI =8.32; 9.53%]. The PER of early mortality overall and after an anastomotic leak was 2.49% [95% CI =2.27; 2.74] and 11.39% [95% CI=9.66; 13.39], respectively. Centers with less than 37 annual esophagectomies had a higher leak rate compared to those with greater than or equal to 37 annual esophagectomies (9.58% vs. 8.34%; P= 0.040). On meta-regression, surgical volume was inversely associated with the PER of esophageal leak and of early mortality. Conclusions: The frequency of anastomotic leaks after esophagectomy, perioperative, and leak associated mortality are inversely associated with esophagectomy volume. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Long-standing controversy has existed over whether sublobar resection is an adequate oncological procedure for clinical stage IA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) ≤2 cm, despite the recent randomized trial reports of Japanese Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) 0802 and Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 140503 demonstrating non-inferior outcomes with sublobar resection compared to lobectomy. As practice patterns shift, we sought to compare oncologic outcomes in patients with these early-stage tumors after wedge resection, segmentectomy, or lobectomy in a contemporary, real-world, cohort., Methods: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database from a single institution was conducted from 2011 to 2020 to identify all patients with clinically staged IA1 or IA2 NSCLC (tumors ≤2 cm with no nodal involvement). The primary outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), with secondary outcomes of lung cancer-specific survival (LCSS), recurrence patterns, and perioperative morbidity and mortality., Results: A total of 480 patients were identified; 93 (19.4%) patients underwent wedge resection, 90 (18.7%) received segmentectomy, and 297 (61.9%) underwent lobectomy. Patients who underwent wedge resection had worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (23.7% ECOG 1 or 2 vs. 5.6% among segmentectomy and 5.4% among lobectomy, P<0.05). Both wedge resection and segmentectomy patients had lower preoperative mean percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in one second (%FEV 1 ) compared to the lobectomy group (81.8% and 82.6% vs. 89.6%, P=0.002), a higher proportion of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and interstitial lung disease (ILD), and a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index. There were no statistically significant differences in 5-year OS, DFS, or LCSS between groups: 90%, 61%, 78% for wedge resections compared with 85%, 75%, 86% for segmentectomy, and 87%, 77%, 87% for lobectomy, respectively. Recurrence was observed in 17 patients who underwent wedge resection (18.3%, 8 local, 9 distant), 12 patients who received segmentectomy (13.4%, 6 local, 6 distant), and 38 patients who underwent lobectomy (12.8%, 11 local, 27 distant), which was not significantly different (P=0.36)., Conclusions: Patients with inferior performance status or lower baseline pulmonary function are more likely to receive wedge resection for clinical stage IA NSCLC ≤2 cm in size. For these small tumors, lobectomy, segmentectomy, and wedge resection provide comparable oncologic outcomes., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-23-1693/coif). N.A. received grants or contracts from AstraZeneca and Roche/Genentech; and has ownership interest in Angiocrine Bioscience, TMRW and Viewpoint Medical. J.L.P. has leadership and ownership interest in Angiocrine Bioscience, TMRW and Viewpoint Medical. B.L. receives speaker fees from AstraZeneca. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2024 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.)