Search

Anastomotic leak (AL) is a common and severe complication after esophagectomy. This study aimed to assess the performance of a consensus-based algorithm for diagnosing AL after minimally invasive esophagectomy. This study used data of the ICAN trial, a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing cervical and intrathoracic anastomosis, in which a predefined diagnostic algorithm was used to guide diagnosing AL. The algorithm identified patients suspected of AL based on clinical signs, blood C-reactive protein (cut-off value 200 mg/L), and/or drain amylase (cut-off value 200 IU/L). Suspicion of AL prompted evaluation with contrast swallow computed tomography and/or endoscopy to confirm AL. Primary outcome measure was algorithm performance in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV), respectively. AL was defined according to the definition of the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group. 245 patients were included, and 125 (51%) patients were suspected of AL. The algorithm had a sensitivity of 62% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 46–75), a specificity of 97% (95% CI: 89–100), and a PPV and NPV of 94% (95% CI: 79–99) and 77% (95% CI: 66–86), respectively, on initial assessment. Repeated assessment in 19 patients with persisting suspicion of AL despite negative or inconclusive initial assessment had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 77–100). The algorithm showed poor performance because the low sensitivity indicates the inability of the algorithm to confirm AL on initial assessment. Repeated assessment using the algorithm was needed to confirm remaining leaks.

Purpose Little is known about the optimal treatment of anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer and whether treatment strategy depends on leakage features and patient characteristics. The objective of this study was to determine which treatment principles are used by expert colorectal surgeons worldwide. Methods In this international case-vignette study, participants completed a survey on their preferred treatment for 11 clinical cases with varying leakage features and two patient scenarios depending on surgical risk (a total of 22 cases). Results In total, 42 of 64 invited surgeons completed the survey from 18 countries worldwide. The majority worked at a university training hospital (62%) and had more than 15 years of experience performing LAR for rectal cancer (52%). Early leaks in septic patients were preferably treated by major salvage surgery, to some extent depending on the patient scenario. In early leaks in non-septic patients, drainage and faecal diversion were the cornerstones of the proposed treatment. Endoscopic vacuum therapy was more often proposed than percutaneous drainage. A minority proposed anastomotic reconstruction, more often for larger defects. Treatment of late leaks ranged from watchful waiting, drainage, or transanal repair to major (non-)restorative salvage surgery, with minimal influence of the degree of symptoms on the proposed strategy. Leaks of the blind loop and rectovaginal fistulae showed high variability in the proposed treatment strategy. Conclusion This TENTACLE-Rectum case-vignette study demonstrates tailored treatment strategies depending on the clinical type of leak and patient characteristics, with variable degrees of consensus and knowledge gaps which should be addressed in future studies.

Contains fulltext : 288475.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Anastomotic leak (AL) is a severe complication after esophagectomy. Clinical presentation of AL is diverse and there is large practice variation regarding treatment of AL. This study aimed to explore different AL treatment strategies and their underlying rationale. This mixed-methods study consisted of an international survey among upper gastro-intestinal (GI) surgeons and focus groups with expert upper GI surgeons. The survey included 10 case vignettes and data sources were integrated after separate analysis. The survey was completed by 188 respondents (completion rate 69%) and 6 focus groups were conducted with 20 international experts. Prevention of mortality was the most important goal of primary treatment. Goals of secondary treatment were to promote tissue healing, return to oral feeding and safe hospital discharge. There was substantial variation in the preferred treatment principles (e.g. drainage or defect closure) and modalities (e.g. stent or endoVAC) within different presentations of AL. Patients with local symptoms were treated by supportive means only or by non-surgical drainage and/or defect closure. Drainage was routinely performed in patients with intrathoracic collections and often combined with defect closure. Patients with conduit necrosis were predominantly treated by resection and reconstruction of the anastomosis or by esophageal diversion. This mixed-methods study shows that overall treatment strategies for AL are determined by vitality of the conduit and presence of intrathoracic collections. There is large variation in preferred treatment principles and modalities. Future research may investigate optimal treatment for specific AL presentations and aim to develop consensus-based treatment guidelines for AL after esophagectomy.

Background Anastomotic leakage has a great impact on clinical outcomes after esophagectomy. It has never been studied whether anastomotic leakage is of equal severity between different types of esophagectomy (i.e., transhiatal, McKeown and Ivor Lewis) in terms of postoperative mortality and morbidity. Methods All esophageal cancer patients with anastomotic leakage after transhiatal, McKeown or Ivor Lewis esophagectomy between 2011 and 2019 were selected from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) registry. The primary outcome was 30-day/in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications, re-operation and ICU readmission rate. Results Data from 1030 patients with anastomotic leakage after transhiatal (n=287), McKeown (n=397) and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (n=346) were evaluated. The 30-day/in-hospital mortality rate was 4.5% in patients with leakage after transhiatal esophagectomy, 8.1% after McKeown and 8.1% after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (P=0.139). After correction for confounders, leakage after transhiatal resection was associated with lower mortality (OR 0.152–0.699, P=0.004), but mortality after McKeown and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy was similar. Re-operation rate was 24.0% after transhiatal, 40.6% after McKeown and 41.3% after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (PP Conclusion This study in patients with anastomotic leakage confirms a strong association between severity of clinical consequences and different types of esophagectomy. It supports the hypothesis that cervical leakage is generally less severe than intrathoracic leakage. The clinical impact of anastomotic leakage should be taken into account, in addition to its incidence, when different types of esophagectomy are compared by clinicians or researchers.

Contains fulltext : 237885.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Transthoracic minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly performed as part of curative multimodality treatment. There appears to be no robust evidence on the preferred location of the anastomosis after transthoracic MIE. OBJECTIVE: To compare an intrathoracic with a cervical anastomosis in a randomized clinical trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This open, multicenter randomized clinical superiority trial was performed at 9 Dutch high-volume hospitals. Patients with midesophageal to distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer planned for curative resection were included. Data collection occurred from April 2016 through February 2020. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to transthoracic MIE with intrathoracic or cervical anastomosis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was anastomotic leakage requiring endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical intervention. Secondary outcomes were overall anastomotic leak rate, other postoperative complications, length of stay, mortality, and quality of life. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-two patients were randomized, and 245 were eligible for analysis. Anastomotic leakage necessitating reintervention occurred in 15 of 122 patients with intrathoracic anastomosis (12.3%) and in 39 of 123 patients with cervical anastomosis (31.7%; risk difference, -19.4% [95% CI, -29.5% to -9.3%]). Overall anastomotic leak rate was 12.3% in the intrathoracic anastomosis group and 34.1% in the cervical anastomosis group (risk difference, -21.9% [95% CI, -32.1% to -11.6%]). Intensive care unit length of stay, mortality rates, and overall quality of life were comparable between groups, but intrathoracic anastomosis was associated with fewer severe complications (risk difference, -11.3% [-20.4% to -2.2%]), lower incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (risk difference, -7.3% [95% CI, -12.1% to -2.5%]), and better quality of life in 3 subdomains (mean differences: dysphagia, -12.2 [95% CI, -19.6 to -4.7]; problems of choking when swallowing, -10.3 [95% CI, -16.4 to 4.2]; trouble with talking, -15.3 [95% CI, -22.9 to -7.7]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, intrathoracic anastomosis resulted in better outcome for patients treated with transthoracic MIE for midesophageal to distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trialregister.nl Identifier: NL4183 (NTR4333).

OBJECTIVE: To describe the pooled learning curves of Ivor Lewis totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) in hospitals stratified by predefined hospital- and surgeon-related factors.BACKGROUND: Ivor Lewis (TMIE is known to have a long learning curve which is associated with considerable learning associated morbidity. It is unknown whether hospital and surgeon characteristics are associated with more efficient learning.METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of consecutive Ivor Lewis TMIE patients in 14 European hospitals was performed. Outcome parameters used as proxy for efficient learning were learning curve length, learning associated morbidity, and the plateau level regarding anastomotic leakage and textbook outcome. Pooled incidences were plotted for the factor-based subgroups using generalized additive models and 2-phase models. Casemix predicted outcomes were plotted and compared with observed outcomes. The investigated factors included annual volume, TMIE experience, clinic visits, courses and fellowships followed, and proctor supervision.RESULTS: This study included 2121 patients. The length of the learning curve was shorter for centers with an annual volume >50 compared to centers with an annual volume CONCLUSIONS: More efficient learning was observed in centers with higher annual volume. Visiting an expert clinic, completing a fellowship, or implementation under a proctor's supervision were not associated with more efficient learning.

Contains fulltext : 288451.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: The number of older patients undergoing curative esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is increasing, and minimally invasive techniques are being increasingly used. The aim of this study is to compare postoperative outcomes after curative esophagectomy between older and younger patients. METHODS: Data was retrieved from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA), a national surgical outcome registry. The primary outcome was severe complications, defined as complications graded Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3. The secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, reintervention rates, length of hospital stays, and mortality. Outcomes were compared between patients aged ≥75 and

Orringer, McKeown and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy are the most commonly performed procedures for esophageal and gastro-esophageal junction cancer. Anastomotic leakage remains a major problem after all types of esophagectomy and it is currently unknown whether anastomotic leakage severity is different between the types of esophagectomy. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between surgical techniques and the severity of anastomotic leakage in patients after Orringer esophagectomy, McKeown esophagectomy or Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Methods All esophageal and gastro-esophageal junction cancer patients with anastomotic leakage after Orringer, McKeown or Ivor Lewis esophagectomy between 2011 and 2019 were selected from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA). The primary outcome parameter was a composite endpoint of reoperation, intensive care unit (ICU) readmission and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcome parameters included postoperative complications, re-intervention rate, ICU and hospital length of stay. Results Data from 1034 patients with anastomotic leakage after Orringer (n = 287), McKeown (n = 397) and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (n = 346) were evaluated. The primary endpoint occurred in 36.3% of patients with anastomotic leakage after Orringer esophagectomy, in 55.4% of patients with anastomotic leakage after McKeown esophagectomy and in 61.2% of patients with anastomotic leakage after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (p Conclusion Consequences of anastomotic leakage are most severe after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, moderately severe after McKeown esophagectomy and least severe after Orringer esophagectomy. This study demonstrated that not only the incidence, but also the severity of anastomotic leakage should be considered in current clinical practice and in studies that compare leakage rates between different surgical techniques of esophagectomy.

Robust evidence is lacking whether Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) or McKeown MIE should be preferred for patients with mid to distal esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction Siewert I-II (GEJ) cancer. Methods In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, patients with esophageal (below the level of the carina) or GEJ cancer planned for curative resection were recruited. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either Ivor Lewis MIE or McKeown MIE. The primary endpoint was anastomotic leakage (AL) requiring endoscopic, radiologic or surgical intervention. Secondary outcome parameters were overall AL rate, postoperative complications, length of stay and mortality. Results A total of 262 patients were randomly assigned to Ivor Lewis MIE (n = 130) or McKeown MIE (n = 132). Seventeen patients were excluded due to not meeting inclusion criteria (n = 2), physical unfitness for surgery (n = 3), patients’ choice (n = 3), interval metastases (n = 5) or peroperative metastases (n = 4). AL necessitating reintervention occurred in 15 (12.3%) of 122 patients after Ivor Lewis MIE and in 39 (31.7%) of 123 patients after McKeown MIE (RR 0.39, 95%CI 0.22–0.65). Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3b) were observed in 10.7% after Ivor Lewis MIE and in 22.0% after McKeown MIE (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25–0.88). Conclusion This study provides evidence for a lower rate of AL requiring reintervention after Ivor Lewis MIE compared to McKeown MIE for patients with mid to distal esophageal or GEJ cancer.

The incidence of elderly patients with esophageal cancer is increasing. The aim of this study is to compare postoperative outcomes after esophagectomy between elderly patients and younger patients and to compare outcomes after totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) in these age groups. Methods Data was retrieved from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA), a national surgical outcome registry. The primary outcome parameter was severe complications, defined as Clavien Dindo ≥3. Secondary outcome parameters were postoperative complications, reintervention rate, length of hospital stay and mortality. Outcome parameters were compared between patients aged ≥75 years and Results Of all 5539 included patients 14.0% were aged ≥75 years and 86.0% were aged Conclusion Severe complications after esophagectomy occur more frequently in elderly compared to younger patients. TMIE in elderly patients did not result in less morbidity and was in fact associated with more severe complications compared to OE across all age groups, which may be due to a learning curve effect.

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a common and severe complication after esophagectomy. It is largely unknown which primary treatments are most effective for which type of leak. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of different primary treatments of AL. Methods International retrospective cohort study, in which patients with AL after esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction were included in the period 2011-2019. Detailed data regarding case mix, resection, leakage characteristics (e.g. organ failure, leak circumference, contamination, drains present) and leakage treatment (e.g. hours from diagnosis to treatment, primary and secondary treatment modalities) were collected. Primary outcome was 90-day mortality and secondary outcomes included length of stay and leak healing time. Different clinically relevant leakage groups have been defined. Efficacy of different treatment strategies adjusted for leakage severity will be analyzed in these clinical groups. The study protocol is accessible at www.tentaclestudy.com. Results Detailed data of 1451 patients with AL was collected from 71 centers in 20 countries. Data accuracy was 96.5%. Preliminary results showed that the overall 90-day mortality was 11.6%. The analysis of TENTACLE—Esophagus data is currently being performed and efficacy of different leakage treatment strategies is being assessed. The efficacy of initial leakage treatment strategies will be ready to be presented at the ISDE meeting. Conclusion This is the largest study on effectiveness of AL treatments. The final results of initial leak treatments, which will be available for presentation at the ISDE meeting, could provide an evidence-based basis that can be used by clinicians to determine the preferred primary treatment strategy in patients with a given type of anastomotic leakage.

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a common and potentially life-threatening complication after esophagectomy. In patients with AL it is largely unknown which patient parameters and leakage characteristics are associated with leak severity and mortality. We aimed to identify prognostic factors for mortality in patients with anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy. Methods The TENTACLE—Esophagus study is an international retrospective cohort study, in which 1451 patients with AL after esophagectomy between 2011 and 2019 were included in 71 centers from 20 countries. Potential prognostic factors were selected from literature and a hypothetical association with mortality. Confounders of (individual) prognostic factors were identified using a directed acyclic graph approach to minimize bias. Primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate crude and adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). The study protocol is accessible at www.tentaclestudy.com. Results Overall 90-day mortality rate was 11.6%. Leakage characteristics with the largest prognostic effect on mortality were gastric conduit ischemia/necrosis (AOR 2.23, 95%CI 1.43-3.49), defect circumference ≥ 25% (AOR 2.10, 95%CI 1.32-3.36) and intrathoracic fluid collections (drained AOR 1.98, 95%CI 1.05-3.75; undrained AOR 2.43, 95%CI 1.57-3.75). Patient parameters with the largest prognostic effect were ASA-score ≥ 3 (AOR 4.18, 95%CI 1.67-10.51), ECOG-score ≥ 2 (AOR 2.83, 95%CI 1.56-5.14) and respiratory failure (AOR 3.89, 95%CI 2.67-5.66), hemodynamic failure (AOR 3.09, 95%CI 1.96-4.88) or renal failure (AOR 4.08, 95%CI 2.20-7.59) at time of AL diagnosis. Conclusion Defect circumference, intrathoracic fluid collections, gastric conduit condition and several patient parameters were identified as prognostic factors for mortality in patients with AL. Adjusting for these prognostic factors may reduce confounding bias in future studies assessing efficacy of AL treatments. The identified prognostic factors contribute to the understanding of the severity of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy and may be used to recognize the severity of an anastomotic leak in individual patients.

Contains fulltext : 235105.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) AIM: Anastomotic leakage is a severe complication after low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer and occurs in up to 20% of patients. Most research focuses on reducing its incidence and finding predictive factors for anastomotic leakage. There are no robust data on severity and treatment strategies with associated outcomes. The aims of this work were (1) to investigate the factors that contribute to severity of anastomotic leakage and to compose an anastomotic leakage severity score and (2) to evaluate the effects of different treatment approaches on prespecified outcome parameters, stratified for severity score and other leakage characteristics. METHOD: TENTACLE-Rectum is an international multicentre retrospective cohort study. Patients with anastomotic leakage after LAR for primary rectal cancer between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2018 will be included by each centre. We aim to include 1246 patients in this study. The primary outcome is 1-year stoma-free survival (i.e. patients alive at 1 year without a stoma). Secondary outcomes include number of reinterventions and unplanned readmissions within 1 year, total length of hospital stay, total time with a stoma, the type of stoma present at 1 year (defunctioning, permanent), complications related to secondary leakage and mortality. For aim (1) regression models will be used to create an anastomotic leakage severity score. For aim (2) the effectiveness of different treatment strategies for leakage will be tested after correction for severity score and leakage characteristics, in addition to other potential related confounders. CONCLUSION: TENTACLE-Rectum will be an important step towards drawing up evidence-based recommendations and improving outcomes for patients who experience severe treatment-related morbidity.

Background An increasing number of older patients is undergoing curative, surgical treatment of esophageal cancer. Previous meta-analyses have shown that older patients suffered from more postoperative morbidity and mortality compared to younger patients, which may lead to patient selection based on age. However, only studies including patients that underwent open esophagectomy were included. Therefore, it remains unknown whether there is an association between age and outcome in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy. Aim To perform a systematic review on age and postoperative outcome in esophageal cancer patients undergoing esophagectomy. Methods Studies comparing older with younger patients with primary esophageal cancer undergoing curative esophagectomy were included. Meta-analysis of studies using a 75-year age threshold are presented in the manuscript, studies using other age thresholds in the Supplementary material. MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for articles published between 1995 and 2020. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Primary outcomes were anastomotic leak, pulmonary and cardiac complications, delirium, 30- and 90-d, and in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included pneumonia and 5-year overall survival. Results Seven studies (4847 patients) using an age threshold of 75 years were included for meta-analysis with 755 older and 4092 younger patients. Older patients (9.05%) had higher rates of 90-d mortality compared with younger patients (3.92%), (confidence interval = 1.10-5.56). In addition, older patients (9.45%) had higher rates of in-hospital mortality compared with younger patients (3.68%), (confidence interval = 1.01-5.91). In the subgroup of 2 studies with minimally invasive esophagectomy, older and younger patients had comparable 30-d, 90-d and in-hospital mortality rates. Conclusion Older patients undergoing curative esophagectomy for esophageal cancer have a higher postoperative mortality risk. Minimally invasive esophagectomy may be important for minimizing mortality in older patients.

Contains fulltext : 245525.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) AIM: Anastomotic leakage (AL) after colon cancer (CC) and rectal cancer (RC) surgery often requires reintervention. Prevalence and morbidity may change over time with evolutions in treatment strategies and changes in patient characteristics. This nationwide study aimed to evaluate changes in the incidence, risk factors and mortality from AL during the past nine years. METHODS: Data of CC and RC resections with primary anastomosis were extracted from the Dutch Colorectal Audit (2011-2019). AL was registered if requiring reintervention. Three consecutive cohorts were compared using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Incidence of AL after CC surgery decreased from 6.6% in 2011-2013 to 4.8% in 2017-2019 and increased from 8.6% to 11.9% after RC surgery. In 2011-2013, male sex, ASA ≥3, (y)pT3-4, neoadjuvant therapy, emergency surgery and multivisceral resection were identified as risk factors for AL after CC surgery. In 2017-2019, only male sex and ASA ≥3 were risk factors for AL. For RC patients, male sex and neoadjuvant therapy were a risk factor for AL in 2011-2013. In 2017-2019, transanal approach was also a risk factor for AL. Postoperative mortality rate after AL was 12% (CC) and 2% (RC) in 2017-2019, without significant changes over time. CONCLUSION: Contradictory trends in incidence and mortality for AL were observed among CC and RC surgery with changing risk factors over the past 9 years. High mortality after AL is only observed after CC surgery and remains unchanged. Continued efforts should be made to improve early detection and treatment of AL for these patients.

Infectious complications occur frequently after esophagectomy. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) has been shown to reduce postoperative infections and anastomotic leakage in gastrointestinal surgery, but robust evidence for esophageal surgery is lacking. The aim was to evaluate the association between SDD and pneumonia, surgical-site infections (SSIs), anastomotic leakage, and 1-year mortality after esophagectomy. A retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients undergoing Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in four Dutch hospitals between 2012 and 2018. Two hospitals used SDD perioperatively and two did not. SDD consisted of an oral paste and suspension (containing amphotericin B, colistin, and tobramycin). The primary outcomes were 30-day postoperative pneumonia and SSIs. Secondary outcomes were anastomotic leakage and 1-year mortality. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the association between SDD and the relevant outcomes (odds ratio (OR)). A total of 496 patients were included, of whom 179 received SDD perioperatively and the other 317 patients did not receive SDD. Patients who received SDD were less likely to develop postoperative pneumonia (20.1% vs. 36.9%, p &lt, 0.001) and anastomotic leakage (10.6% vs. 19.9%, p = 0.008). Multivariate analysis showed that SDD is an independent protective factor for postoperative pneumonia (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23&ndash, 0.67, p &lt, 0.001) and anastomotic leakage (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26&ndash, 0.84, p = 0.011). Use of perioperative SDD seems to be associated with a lower risk of pneumonia and anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy.

PURPOSE The use of standardized structured reporting (SSR) can improve communication between cancer specialists, which might improve clinical care; however, there are no reliable data on whether the introduction of SSR is associated with improvements in clinical outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS We performed a retrospective cohort study in the Netherlands, including all patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) from 2009 to 2014. As a reference, cohorts of 2007 and 2008 were included. Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry were used and combined with data from the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA) and the Dutch ColoRectal Audit. We tested the preformulated hypothesis that use of SSR improves the care of patients with CRC by improving the completeness of the pathology reports, the quality of the pathology evaluation, and patient outcomes with respect to treatment and survival. RESULTS We included 72,859 patients with CRC (23.8% reference, 32.9% SSR, and 43.3% narrative reports). Use of SSR increased over time, which resulted in more complete pathology reports (95.8% v 89.8%; P < .001). Risk assessment in stage II colon cancer was more adequate and resulted in an increased delivery of adjuvant therapy in patients with SSR (19.6% v 15.1%; P = .001). Risk of death for patients in the SSR group was significantly lowered (corrected hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI 0.90 to 0.97). CONCLUSION We demonstrate that use of SSR improved patient care in those with CRC by providing more complete reports of higher quality, which had significant effects on the delivery of adjuvant therapy and patient outcomes.

Contains fulltext : 203355.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) OBJECTIVE: To investigate the morbidity that is associated with the learning curve of minimally invasive esophagectomy. BACKGROUND: Although learning curves have been described, it is currently unknown how much extra morbidity is associated with the learning curve of technically challenging surgical procedures. METHODS: Prospectively collected data were retrospectively analyzed of all consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in 4 European expert centers. The primary outcome parameter was anastomotic leakage. Secondary outcome parameters were operative time and textbook outcome ("optimal outcome"). Learning curves were plotted using weighted moving average and CUSUM analysis was used to determine after how many cases the plateau was reached. Learning associated morbidity was calculated with area under the curve analysis. RESULTS: This study included 646 patients. Three of the 4 hospitals reached the plateau of 8% anastomotic leakage. The length of the learning curve was 119 cases. The mean incidence of anastomotic leakage decreased from 18.8% during the learning phase to 4.5% after the plateau had been reached (P < 0.001). Thirty-six extra patients (10.1% of all patients operated on during the learning curve) experienced learning associated anastomotic leakage, that could have been avoided if patients were operated by surgeons who had completed the learning curve. The incidence of textbook outcome increased from 28% to 53% and the mean operative time decreased from 344 minutes to 270 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: A considerable number of 36 extra patients (10.1%) experienced learning associated anastomotic leakage. More research is urgently needed to investigate how learning associated morbidity can be reduced to increase patient safety during learning curves.

Background The number of elderly patients suffering from esophageal cancer is increasing, due to an increasing incidence of esophageal cancer and increasing life expectancy. However, the effect of age on morbidity, mortality, and survival after Ivor Lewis total minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) is not well known. Methods A prospectively documented database from December 2010 to June 2017 was analyzed, including all patients who underwent Ivor Lewis TMIE for esophageal cancer in three Dutch high-volume esophageal cancer centers. Patients younger than 75 years (younger group) were compared to patients aged 75 years or older (elderly group). Baseline patient characteristics and perioperative data were included. Surgical complications were graded using the Clavien-Dindo scale. The primary outcome was postoperative complications Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3. Secondary outcome parameters were postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality, 30- and 90-day mortality and survival. Results Four hundred and forty-six patients were included, 357 in the younger and 89 in the elderly group. No significant differences were recorded regarding baseline patient characteristics. There was no significant difference in complications graded Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 and overall complications, short-term mortality, and survival. Delirium occurred in 27.0% in the elderly and 11.8% in the younger group (p

Contains fulltext : 251526.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 225152.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 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.

Introduction: Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) is increasingly used in treatment of patients with esophageal carcinoma. However, it is currently unknown if McKeown TMIE or Ivor Lewis TMIE should be preferred for patients in whom both procedures are oncologically feasible. Methods: The study was performed in 4 high-volume Dutch esophageal cancer centers between November 2009 and April 2017. Prospectively collected data from consecutive patients with esophageal cancer localized in the distal esophagus or gastroesophageal junction undergoing McKeown TMIE or Ivor Lewis TMIE were included. Patients were propensity score matched for age, body mass index, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, Charlson Comorbidity Index, tumor type, tumor location, clinical stage, neoadjuvant treatment, and the hospital of surgery. The primary outcome parameter was anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperation. Secondary outcome parameters were operation characteristics, pathology results, complications, reinterventions, reoperations, length of stay, and mortality. Results: Of all 787 included patients, 420 remained after matching. The incidence of anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperation was 23.3% after McKeown TMIE versus 12.4% after Ivor Lewis TMIE (P = 0.003). Ivor Lewis TMIE was significantly associated with a lower incidence of pulmonary complications (46.7% vs 31.9%), recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (9.5% vs 0.5%), reoperations (18.6% vs 11.0%), 90-day mortality (7.1% vs 2.9%), shorter median intensive care unit length of stay (2 days vs 1 day) and shorter median hospital length of stay (12 vs 11 days) (all P < 0.05). R0 resection rate was similar between the groups. The median number of examined lymph nodes was 21 after McKeown TMIE and 25 after Ivor Lewis TMIE (P < 0.001).Conclusions: Ivor Lewis TMIE is associated with a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage, 90-day mortality and other postoperative morbidity compared to McKeown TMIE in patients in whom both procedures are oncologically feasible.

Aim The aim of this study is to investigate which factors contribute to anastomotic leakage severity and to compose an evidence based anastomotic leakage severity score. Secondly, we aim to investigate which anastomotic leakage characteristics are associated with success of different anastomotic leakage treatments and to compare the effectiveness of different initial anastomotic leakage treatments for anastomotic leakage classified according to severity and leakage characteristics. Background Anastomotic leakage occurs in 0%-30% after esophagectomy for cancer. It is a severe complication with mortality rates approximately ranging from 2%-12%. In addition, it is associated with a prolonged ICU treatment and hospital stay. Anastomotic leakage severity is currently graded according to how it is treated (grade I: conservative treatment, grade II: endoscopic/radiologic intervention and grade III: surgical intervention). However, this scoring system cannot be used to guide decision making when anastomotic leakage is diagnosed in a clinical setting. Factors that may influence the severity of the anastomotic leakage are (amongst others) location of the anastomosis, estimated surface of the defect, estimated circumference of the defect, extent of contamination, degree of sepsis and time from diagnosis until therapy. However, little is known about to what extent these and other factors contribute to anastomotic leakage severity. In addition, there is a paucity of data on what leakage characteristics dictate the success of a specific treatment. Methods We will perform an international multicenter retrospective cohort study. All adult patients with anastomotic leakage according to the ECCG definition after esophagectomy and gastric conduit reconstruction for esophageal cancer are suitable for inclusion. We aim to include at least 1000 patients. The primary outcome parameter is 90-day mortality. Secondary outcome parameters are in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, 180-day mortality, comprehensive complications index, total number of reinterventions, hospital and ICU length of stay and hospital related costs. Results Data collection will take place from April 2019 until December 2019. Study results are expected in June 2020. Conclusion We hypothesize that we will be able to identify factors that influence the severity of the anastomotic leakage and to compose a leakage severity score. Furthermore, we expect to identify leakage characteristics dictating the success of a specific treatment.

Aim To define factors associated with more efficient learning after implementation of Ivor Lewis totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE). Background and Methods It is unknown which factors are associated with more efficient learning after implementation of Ivor Lewis TMIE. Prospectively collected data of 15 European expert centers are retrospectively analyzed. Consecutive patients undergoing Ivor Lewis TMIE are included. The primary outcome is anastomotic leakage and the secondary outcome is textbook outcome (TBO). The pre-defined level of acceptance for anastomotic leakage is set at 8% with a 5% margin. Trends in outcome parameters are plotted using weighted moving average to define when the pre-defined level of acceptance is reached. Outcome trends are compared between groups of hospitals for the following factors: hospital volume, surgeon experience, overall TMIE experience, expert clinic visit, Ivor Lewis TMIE course followed and Ivor Lewis TMIE proctor supervision during implementation. Results This study included 1718 patients. Hospitals with a volume >50 cases per year reached the pre-defined level of acceptance for anastomotic leakage at case 114, hospitals with a volume 10 years and 50 cases and Conclusion Learning curves are shorter and the level of acceptance is reached earlier if Ivor Lewis TMIE is implemented in a high-volume hospital, if the procedure is implemented in a hospital with a surgeon with >10 years of experience, or if the surgeon has experience in other types of TMIE of >50 cases. These findings can inform surgeons and can contribute to formulate evidence-based training programs.

Background Compared to conventional laparoscopy, robot assisted surgery is expected to have most potential in difficult areas and demanding technical skills like minimally invasive suturing. This study was performed to identify the differences in the learning curves of laparoscopic versus robot assisted suturing. Method Novice participants performed three suturing tasks on the EoSim laparoscopic augmented reality simulator or the RobotiX robot assisted virtual reality simulator. Each participant performed an intracorporeal suturing task, a tilted plane needle transfer task and an anastomosis needle transfer task. To complete the learning curve, all tasks were repeated up to twenty repetitions or until a time plateau was reached. Clinically relevant and comparable parameters regarding time, movements and safety were recorded. Intracorporeal suturing time and cumulative sum analysis was used to compare the learning curves and phases. Results Seventeen participants completed the learning curve laparoscopically and 30 robot assisted. Median first knot suturing time was 611 s (s) for laparoscopic versus 251 s for robot assisted (p p p p > 0.05). Conclusion The learning curve of minimally invasive suturing shows a shorter task time curve using robotic assistance compared to the laparoscopic curve. However, laparoscopic outcomes show good end results with rapid outcome improvement.

Contains fulltext : 175660.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) INTRODUCTION: Esophagectomy for cancer can be performed in a two-stage procedure with an intrathoracic anastomosis: the Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. A growing incidence of distal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas and increasing use of minimally invasive techniques have prompted interest in this procedure. The aim of this study was to assess short-term results of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIE-IL). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed from June 2007 until September 2014, including patients that underwent MIE-IL for distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer in six different hospitals in the Netherlands and Spain. Data were collected with regard to operative techniques, pathology and postoperative complications. RESULTS: In total, 282 patients underwent MIE-IL, of which 90.2 % received neoadjuvant therapy. Anastomotic leakage was observed in 43 patients (15.2 %), of whom 13 patients (4.6 %) had empyema, necessitating thoracotomy for decortication. With an aggressive treatment of complications, the 30-day and in-hospital mortality rate was 2.1 %. An R0-resection was obtained in 92.5 % of the patients. After neoadjuvant therapy, 20.1 % of patients had a complete response. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas is an upcoming approach for reducing morbidity caused by laparotomy and thoracotomy. Anastomotic leakage rate is still high possibly due to technical diversity of anastomotic techniques, and a high percentage of patients treated by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. An aggressive approach to complications leads to a low mortality of 2.1 %. Further improvement and standardization in the anastomotic technique are needed in order to perform a safe intrathoracic anastomosis. 8 p.

Contains fulltext : 178005.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Enhanced recovery programs effectively optimize perioperative care and reduce postoperative morbidity. In esophagectomy, several components of the ERAS program are successfully introduced. However, timing and type of postoperative feeding remain a matter of debate. Adequate nutritional support is essential in patients undergoing an esophagectomy. These patients often present with weight loss and their eating pattern is strongly altered by the procedure and reconstruction. Total parenteral nutrition (TPN) is associated with severe septic complications and enteral nutrition (EN) does not increase major complications. Therefore, early EN after esophagectomy is favored over TPN. However, with enteral feeding tubes minor complications occur frequently (13-38%) and in some cases this can hamper recovery. Based on experience in other types of upper gastro-intestinal surgery, early start of oral feeding could improve time to functional recovery after surgery. The total length of stay was significantly shorter in four prospective studies (6-12 vs. 8-13 days). However, large randomized controlled trials are lacking and the potential benefit of early oral feeding after esophageal surgery remains elusive. EN is nowadays the optimal feeding route after esophagectomy. TPN should only be used in specific cases in which EN is contraindicated. Early initiation of oral intake is promising and could improve postoperative recovery. However, further research is needed to substantiate these results.

Contains fulltext : 215821.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Surgical innovation is necessary to increase surgical effectiveness and to decrease postoperative complications, but can be associated with learning curves. The significance of surgical learning curves is increasing and it is important to take surgical learning curves into account when interpreting outcome data that is acquired during an implementation period. This may especially be the case for a technically challenging procedure like minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). This review article provides an overview of the published literature that has described a learning curve for MIE, with particular interest in the relationship between the learning curve and postoperative complications. Twenty two studies reported learning curves of different types of MIE. These studies showed that the length of the learning curve of MIE can be significant, but most studies are single center studies of limited methodological quality. In addition, several learning curve analysis methods are used but a clear recommendation regarding the preferred method is lacking. Most studies use intraoperative parameters (e.g., operative time) to define the length of the learning curve. However, significant learning curve effects have been found for clinically more relevant parameters (e.g., anastomotic leak), especially for Ivor Lewis MIE. These studies suggest that patient safety can be substantially compromised during learning curves. To increase patient safety and shorten the learning curve, evidence based and effective safe implementation programs are necessary.

Introduction Up to 32% of patients with esophageal cancer show a pathological complete response (ypCR) after neoadjuvant therapy. To prevent overtreatment, the indication to perform esophagectomy in these patients should be reconsidered. Implementing an organ-preserving strategy for patients with ypCR requires an accurate assessment of residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment. The aim of this study was to systematically review the effectiveness of imaging techniques used for detection of ypCR after neoadjuvant therapy but before resection in patients with esophageal cancer. Methods A systematic literature search of the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed from January 1, 2000, to December 13, 2017. Eligible studies were diagnostic studies that compared results of imaging modalities after neoadjuvant therapy to histopathological findings in the resection specimen after esophagectomy. Methodological quality was assessed by the Cochrane Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, version 2, model. Primary outcome measures were true positive, false-positive, false-negative, and true negative values of imaging techniques predicting ypCR. A meta-analysis was performed by pooling sensitivities and specificities by using a bivariate model. Results A total of 4420 articles were identified. After exclusion of irrelevant titles and abstracts, 360 articles were reviewed in full text. In total, four imaging modalities (computed tomography [CT], positron emission tomography [PET-CT], endoscopic ultrasound [EUS], and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) were used for restaging. The meta-analysis was conducted with data from 56 studies involving 3625 patients. The pooled sensitivities of CT, PET-CT, EUS, and MRI for detecting ypCR were 0.35, 0.62, 0.01 and 0.80, respectively, whereas the pooled specificities were 0.83, 0.73, 0.99, and 0.83, respectively. The positive predictive value in detecting ypCR was 0.47 for CT, 0.41 for PET-CT, not applicable for EUS, and 0.61 for MRI. Conclusion Current imaging modalities such as CT, PET-CT, and EUS seem to be insufficiently accurate to identify complete responders. More accurate diagnostic tests are needed to improve restaging accuracy for patients with esophageal cancer.

Background Surgery proficiency gain curves must be shortened to reduce patient harm during esophagectomy learning. Objective This study aimed to test whether surgeon volume and surgeon age influenced the length of period of surgical proficiency gain. Methods This population-based cohort study included 1384 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy by any of the 36 highest-volume surgeons in Sweden between 1987 and 2010, with follow-up until 2016. Annual surgeon volume was dichotomized by the median values into ‘higher-volume surgeons’ (≥ 4 cases per year) and ‘lower-volume surgeons’ (

Contains fulltext : 200227.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Surgical innovation and pioneering are important for improving patient outcome, but can be associated with learning curves. Although learning curves in surgery are a recognized problem, the impact of surgical learning curves is increasing, due to increasing complexity of innovative surgical procedures, the rapid rate at which new interventions are implemented and a decrease in relative effectiveness of new interventions compared to old interventions. For minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), there is now robust evidence that implementation can lead to significant learning associated morbidity (morbidity during a learning curve, that could have been avoided if patients were operated by surgeons that have completed the learning curve). This article provides an overview of the evidence of the impact of learning curves after implementation of MIE. In addition, caveats for implementation and available evidence regarding factors that are important for safe implementation and safe pioneering of MIE are discussed.

Contains fulltext : 177816.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has consistently been associated with improved perioperative outcome and similar oncological safety compared to open esophagectomy. However, it is currently unclear what type of MIE is preferred for patients with resectable esophageal cancer. METHODS: Literature was searched in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library combining relevant search terms. Articles that included patients undergoing totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) or hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) and compared McKeown with Ivor Lewis procedures were included. Studies were excluded if they included >10% of patients undergoing a procedure other than MIE McKeown or MIE Ivor Lewis (i.e., transhiatal resections). The primary outcome parameter was anastomotic leakage. Secondary outcome parameters were: other complications, reinterventions, reoperations, hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, postoperative mortality, operative time, blood loss, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes examined, quality of life and costs. RESULTS: Five studies with a total of 1,681 patients undergoing TMIE were included. There were no studies comparing HMIE McKeown versus HMIE Ivor Lewis. There were no randomized controlled trials and all included studies were cohort studies with a moderate risk of bias. No meta-analysis could be performed for R0 resection rate, survival, quality of life and costs because there was insufficient data available for these parameters. The incidence of anastomotic leakage did not differ between the groups [relative risk (RR) =1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) =0.90-10.38, P=0.14]. TMIE Ivor Lewis was associated with a lower incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) trauma (RR =6.70, 95% CI =3.09-14.55, P

Background Anastomotic leakage (0–30%) after esophagectomy is a severe complication and is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to determine which treatment for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy have the best clinical outcome, based on the currently available literature. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, and Web of Science until April 2017. All studies reporting on the specific treatment of cervical or intrathoracic anastomotic leakage following esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction for esophageal or cardia cancer were included. The primary outcome parameter was postoperative mortality. Methodological quality was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Results Nineteen retrospective cohort studies including 273 patients were identified. Methodological quality of all studies was poor to moderate. Mortality rates of intrathoracic anastomotic leakages in the treatment groups were as follows: conservative (14%), endoscopic stent (8%), endoscopic drainage (8%), endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure system (0%), and surgery treatment group (50%). Mortality rates of cervical anastomotic leakages in the treatment groups were as follows: conservative (8%), endoscopic stent (29%), and endoscopic dilatation (0%). Discussion Due to small cohorts, heterogeneity between studies, and lack of data regarding leakage characteristics, no evidence supporting a specific treatment for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy was found. A severity score based on leakage characteristics instead of treatment given is essential for determining the optimal treatment of anastomotic leakage. In the absence of robust evidence-based treatment guidelines, we suggest customized treatment depending on sequelae of the leak and clinical condition of the patient. PrDepartment of Surgery, Radboudumc, P.O.B. 9101/618 NLactical advices are provided. Trial registration Registration number PROSPERO: CRD42016032374. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13017-019-0235-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Intrathoracic anastomosis after oesophagectomy has recently been associated with reduced functional morbidity compared to a cervical anastomosis. Methods: From January 2011 until August 2012, all operable patients were scheduled to undergo minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIE) with intrathoracic anastomosis. Patient characteristics, complications, morbidity and mortality were prospectively registered and analysed. Results: Forty-five patients underwent MIE with intrathoracic stapled end-to-side anastomosis. Major changes in operative technique were made 2 times due to non-satisfactory results, dividing the patients into 3 groups. One patient in group 1 died. The anastomotic leakage rate decreased from 44% in group 1 to 0% in groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.007). The pulmonary complication rate decreased from 67% in group 1 to 44% in group 2 (not significant, NS) and 22% in group 3 (p = 0.04). The median hospital stay decreased from 17 days in group 1 to 14 days in group 2 (NS) and 8 days in group 3 (p < 0.001). There were no stenoses, no dilatations and no patients with recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. Conclusions: The introduction of the intrathoracic anastomosis led to favourable functional results but was initially associated with considerable morbidity. Results improved after changing operative techniques, but the learning curve may also be responsible.

Contains fulltext : 175617.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Both cervical esophagogastric anastomosis (CEA) and intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis (IEA) are used to restore gastrointestinal integrity following minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). No prospective randomized data on functional outcome, postoperative morbidity, and mortality between these techniques are currently available. METHODS: A comparison was conducted including all consecutive patients with esophageal carcinoma of the distal esophagus or gastroesophageal junction undergoing MIE with CEA or MIE with IEA from October 2009 to July 2014 in 3 high-volume esophageal cancer centers. Functional outcome, postoperative morbidity, and mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: MIE with CEA was performed in 146 patients and MIE with IEA in 210 patients. The incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy was 14.4% after CEA and 0% after IEA (p < 0.001). Dysphagia, dumping, and regurgitation were reported less frequently after IEA compared with CEA (p < 0.05). Dilatation of benign strictures occurred in 43.8% after CEA and this was 6.2% after IEA (p < 0.001). If a benign stricture was identified, it was dilated a median of 4 times in the CEA group and only once in the IEA group (p < 0.001). Anastomotic leakage for which reoperation was required occurred in 8.2% after CEA and in 11.4% after IEA (not significant). Median ICU stay, hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality were similar between the groups (not significant). CONCLUSIONS: MIE with IEA was associated with better functional results than MIE with CEA with less dysphagia, less benign anastomotic strictures requiring fewer dilatations, and a lower incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. Other postoperative morbidity and mortality did not differ between the groups.

Contains fulltext : 172737.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Immediate start of oral intake is beneficial following colorectal surgery. However, following esophagectomy the safety and feasibility of immediate oral intake is unclear, thus these patients are still kept nil by mouth. This study therefore aimed to determine the feasibility and safety of oral nutrition immediately after esophagectomy. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective trial was conducted in 3 referral centers between August 2013 and May 2014, including 50 patients undergoing a minimally invasive esophagectomy. Oral nutrition was started postoperatively immediately (clear liquids on postoperative day [POD] 0, liquid nutrition on POD 1 to 6, solid food from POD 7). Nonoral enteral nutrition was started when

BACKGROUND: Currently, a cervical esophagogastric anastomosis (CEA) is often performed after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). However, the CEA is associated with a considerable incidence of anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperation and moderate functional results. An intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis (IEA) might reduce the incidence of anastomotic leakage, improve functional results and reduce costs. The objective of the ICAN trial is to compare anastomotic leakage and postoperative morbidity, mortality, quality of life and cost-effectiveness between CEA and IEA after MIE.METHODS/DESIGN: The ICAN trial is an open randomized controlled multicentre superiority trial, comparing CEA (control group) with IEA (intervention group) after MIE. All patients with esophageal cancer planning to undergo curative MIE are considered for inclusion. A total of 200 patients will be included in the study and randomized between the groups in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperation, and secondary outcomes are (amongst others) other postoperative complications, new onset of organ failure, length of stay, mortality, benign strictures requiring dilatation, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that an IEA after MIE is associated with a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperation than a CEA. The trial is also designed to give answers to additional research questions regarding a possible difference in functional outcome, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NTR4333 . Registered on 23 December 2013.

Background Ivor Lewis totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) is associated with a long learning curve and high learning associated morbidity. Factors that are associated with a shorter learning curve and less associated morbidity have not been investigated from clinical data. The aim of this study was to investigate whether there is a relationship between hospital volume and the length of the learning curve and learning associated morbidity. Methods Prospectively collected data were retrospectively analyzed of all consecutive patients undergoing Ivor Lewis TMIE in expert centers in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands. The primary outcome parameter was anastomotic leakage requiring reoperation or reintervention. Learning curves were plotted using weighted moving average and CUSUM analysis was used to determine after how many cases the plateau was reached. Learning associated morbidity was calculated with area under the curve analysis. The length of the learning curve and learning associated morbidity were compared between hospitals 50 procedures (high volume) per year. Results Nine centers participated and 906 patients were included. The mean number of Ivor Lewis TMIE performed per center per year was 41 (range 22–60). The overall length of the learning curve was 136 cases and this was 148 cases in the normal volume group versus 122 cases in the high volume group. Learning associated anastomotic leakage occurred in 10 patients (7.4% of all patients operated during the learning curve) and this was 13 patients (8.5%) in the normal volume group versus 6 patients (5.2%) in the high volume group. Conclusion Learning curves were shorter and learning associated morbidity was lower in centers with higher case volume. This is the first study demonstrating this effect from clinical data. Patient safety can be significantly compromised during surgical learning curves and probably, patient safety can be increased if surgeons learn technically challenging procedures in higher volume centers. Our data can guide the design of implementation programs for technically challenging procedures. This abstract was submitted on behalf of the esophagectomy learning curve collaborative group. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background Anastomotic leakage affects up to 30% of patients after esophagectomy each year and leads to considerable morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to determine which treatment for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy has the best clinical outcome, based on currently available literature. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase and Web of Science until April 2017. All studies reporting on the treatment of anastomotic leakage following esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction for esophageal or cardia cancer were included. The primary outcome parameter was postoperative mortality. Methodological quality was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Results Nineteen retrospective cohort studies including 273 patients were identified. Methodological quality of all studies was poor to moderate. Regarding intrathoracic anastomotic leakages, mortality rates in the conservative, endoscopic stent, endoscopic drainage, endoscopic vacuum assisted closure system and surgery treatment group were 14%, 8%, 8%, 0%, and 50%, respectively. Regarding cervical anastomotic leakages, mortality rates in the conservative, endoscopic stent and endoscopic dilatation group were 8%, 29%, and 0%, respectively. Conclusion Due to small cohorts, heterogeneity between studies, and lack of data regarding leakage characteristics, no evidence supporting one treatment for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy was found. A severity score based on leakage characteristics instead of treatment given is essential for determining the optimal treatment of anastomotic leakage. A prospective registration study could provide answers to issues as which leakage characteristics determine its severity and which treatment options have the best outcomes for a given anastomotic leakage severity. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background Worldwide, the number of elderly patients suffering from esophageal cancer is increasing due to the increasing incidence of esophageal cancer and increasing life expectancy of the general population. The effect of age on morbidity, mortality and survival after Ivor Lewis totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) with curative intention are not well known since elderly patients have been excluded in randomized trials. Methods A retrospective analysis of a prospectively documented database from December 2010 to June 2017 was performed, including all patients who underwent Ivor Lewis TMIE with curative intent for esophageal cancer in three Dutch hospitals. Patients younger than 75 years (younger group) were compared to patients aged 75 years or older (elderly group). Postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality, 30 and 90 days mortality, long-term complications and survival were compared between these two groups. Results Four hundred and forty-six patients were included, 89 patients in the elderly group and 357 patients in the younger group. In the elderly group, a significantly higher incidence of non-surgical complications (77.5% versus 66.7%; P = 0.048), cardiovascular complications (24.7% versus 14.0%; P = 0.014) and delirium (27.0% versus 11.8%; P = 0.000) was found. There was no significant difference in surgical complications, overall complications, 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, 1-year survival and 2-year survival. Conclusion Although Ivor Lewis TMIE in elderly patients is associated with a higher rate of non-surgical complications, it can be safely performed without increasing postoperative mortality. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Contains fulltext : 242807.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)