Search

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of preoperative oral management (POM) by dentists on the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), length of hospital stay, medical costs, and days of antibiotics administration following both open and thoracoscopic esophagectomy.Dental plaque is an established risk factor for postoperative pneumonia, which could be reduced by POM. However, few clinical guidelines for cancer treatment, including those for esophageal cancer, recommend POM as routine perioperative care.We extracted data of esophagectomy cases from the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. We subsequently conducted propensity score (PS) analyses for multilevel data, including matching, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), and standardized mortality ratio weighting (SMRW), to estimate the effect of POM by dentists on the outcomes of esophagectomy.We analyzed 3412 esophagectomy cases of which 812 were open, and 2600 were thoracoscopic surgery. In IPTW analysis to estimate the average treatment effect, the risk difference of postoperative aspiration pneumonia ranged from -2.49% to -2.02% between the POM and control groups of both open and thoracoscopic esophagectomy cases. IPTW analyses indicated that the total medical costs of thoracoscopic esophagectomy were reduced by 221,200 to 253,100 Japanese Yen (equivalent to about $2000-$2200). In PS matching and SMRW analyses to estimate average treatment effect on treated, there was no difference in outcomes between the POM and control groups.Our results suggested that in patients undergoing open or thoracoscopic esophagectomy, POM by dentists prevented the occurrence of postoperative aspiration pneumonia. It could also reduce the total medical costs of thoracoscopic esophagectomy. Thus, POM by dentists can be considered as a routine perioperative care for all patients undergoing esophagectomy, regardless of the expected risk for PPC.

Objective: Thoracoscopic esophagectomy (TSE), as a minimally invasive technique, has obtained wide acceptance for treating esophageal cancer. In this study, we report our experience of the transfer from open sweet esophagectomy (OSE) to TSE and compare cost associated with the two approaches for esophageal cancer., Patients and Methods: Data were taken through a retrospective review of operative outcomes, complications and cost of 91 patients who underwent OSE or TSE for esophageal cancer from January 2012 to June 2014., Results: Among 91 patients, 48 patients underwent TSE, and 43 patients underwent OSE. Patients dealt with TSE had significantly less blood loss (152 ml vs. 204 ml, P = 0.004), shorter chest drainage time (3.3 days vs. 4.5 days, P < 0.001), less patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit after surgery (6.3% vs. 30.2%, P = 0.003), and lower incidence of respiratory complications (16.7% vs. 37.2%, P = 0.026). However, the operative time was statistically longer in TSE group (276.0 min vs. 207.4 min, P < 0.001). The total cost (¥61,817 vs. ¥48,712, P < 0.001) and the day of surgery cost (¥29,701 vs. ¥19,446, P < 0.001) were significantly higher in the TSE group., Conclusion: This study shows that TSE is a safe and acceptable alternative to OSE. TSE will be more competitive if its cost can be reduced., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest

Aim: To introduce a two-step method for creating a gastric tube during laparoscopic-thoracoscopic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy and assess its clinical application., Methods: One hundred and twenty-two patients with middle or lower esophageal cancer who underwent laparoscopic-thoracoscopic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy at Liaoning Cancer Hospital and Institute from March 2014 to March 2016 were included in this study, and divided into two groups based on the procedure used for creating a gastric tube. One group used a two-step method for creating a gastric tube, and the other group used the conventional method. The two groups were compared regarding the operating time, surgical complications, and number of stapler cartridges used., Results: The mean operating time was significantly shorter in the two-step method group than in the conventional method group [238 (179-293) min vs 272 (189-347) min, P < 0.01]. No postoperative death occurred in either group. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications [14 (21.9%) vs 13 (22.4%), P = 0.55] or mean number of stapler cartridges used [5 (4-6) vs 5.2 (5-6), P = 0.007] between the two groups., Conclusion: The two-step method for creating a gastric tube during laparoscopic-thoracoscopic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy has the advantages of simple operation, minimal damage to the tubular stomach, and reduced use of stapler cartridges., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: There are no conflicts of interest in relation to this manuscript.

Background A minimally invasive approach to esophagectomy is being used increasingly, but concerns remain regarding the feasibility, safety, cost, and outcomes. We performed an analysis of the costs and benefits of minimally invasive, hybrid, and open esophagectomy approaches for esophageal cancer surgery. Methods The data of 83 consecutive patients who underwent a McKeown's esophagectomy at Prince of Songkla University Hospital between January 2008 and December 2014 were analyzed. Open esophagectomy was performed in 54 patients, minimally invasive esophagectomy in 13, and hybrid esophagectomy in 16. There were no differences in patient characteristics among the 3 groups Minimally invasive esophagectomy was undertaken via a thoracoscopic-laparoscopic approach, hybrid esophagectomy via a thoracoscopic-laparotomy approach, and open esophagectomy by a thoracotomy-laparotomy approach. Results Minimally invasive esophagectomy required a longer operative time than hybrid or open esophagectomy ( p = 0.02), but these patients reported less postoperative pain ( p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in blood loss, intensive care unit stay, hospital stay, or postoperative complications among the 3 groups. Minimally invasive esophagectomy incurred higher operative and surgical material costs than hybrid or open esophagectomy ( p = 0.01), but there were no significant differences in inpatient care and total hospital costs. Conclusion Minimally invasive esophagectomy resulted in the least postoperative pain but the greatest operative cost and longest operative time. Open esophagectomy was associated with the lowest operative cost and shortest operative time but the most postoperative pain. Hybrid esophagectomy had a shorter learning curve while sharing the advantages of minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Background: Deep muscle relaxation has been shown to facilitate operating conditions during laparoscopic surgery. Minimally invasive esophageal surgery is a high-risk procedure in which the use of deep neuromuscular block (NMB) may improve conditions in the thoracic phase as well. Neuromuscular antagonists can be given on demand or by continuous infusion (deep NMB). However, the positioning of the patient often hampers train-of-four (TOF) monitoring. A continuous infusion thus may result in a deep NMB at the end of surgery. The use of neostigmine not only is insufficient for reversing deep NMB but also may be contraindicated for this procedure because of its cholinergic effects. Sugammadex is an effective alternative but is rather expensive. This study aims to evaluate the use of deep versus on-demand NMB on operating, anaesthesiologic conditions, and costs in patients undergoing a two- or three-phase thoracolaparoscopic esophageal resection., Methods/design: We will conduct a single-center randomized controlled double-blinded intervention study. Sixty-six patients undergoing a thoracolaparoscopic esophageal resection will be included. Patients will receive either continuous infusion of rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg per hour (group 1) or continuous infusion of NaCl 0.9 % 0.06 ml/kg per hour (group 2). In both groups, on-demand boluses of rocuronium can be given (open-label design). The primary aim of this study is to compare the surgical rating scale (SRS) during the abdominal phase. Main secondary aims are to evaluate SRS during the thoracic phase, to evaluate anesthesiologic conditions, and to compare costs (in euros) associated with use of rocuronium, sugammadex, and duration of surgery., Discussion: This study is the first to evaluate the benefits of deep neuromuscular relaxation on surgical and anaesthesiologic conditions during thoracolaparoscopic esophageal surgery. This surgical procedure is unique because it consists of both an abdominal phase and a thoracic phase taking place in different order depending on the subtype of surgery (a two- or three-stage transthoracic esophagectomy). In addition, possible benefits associated with deep NMB, such as decrease in operating time, will be weighed against costs., Trial Registration: European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT) number: 2014-002147-18 (obtained 19 May 2014) ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02320734 (obtained 18 Dec. 2014).

Background: For esophageal cancer patients, radical esophagolymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of multimodality treatment with curative intent. Transthoracic esophagectomy is the preferred surgical approach worldwide allowing for en-bloc resection of the tumor with the surrounding lymph nodes. However, the percentage of cardiopulmonary complications associated with the transthoracic approach is high (50 to 70%).Recent studies have shown that robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy (RATE) is at least equivalent to the open transthoracic approach for esophageal cancer in terms of short-term oncological outcomes. RATE was accompanied with reduced blood loss, shorter ICU stay and improved lymph node retrieval compared with open esophagectomy, and the pulmonary complication rate, hospital stay and perioperative mortality were comparable. The objective is to evaluate the efficacy, risks, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of RATE as an alternative to open transthoracic esophagectomy for treatment of esophageal cancer., Methods/design: This is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven monocenter randomized controlled parallel-group, superiority trial. All adult patients (age ≥ 18 and ≤ 80 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3, M0) esophageal carcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus and with European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 will be assessed for eligibility and included after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 112) with resectable esophageal cancer are randomized in the outpatient department to either RATE (n = 56) or open three-stage transthoracic esophageal resection (n = 56). The primary outcome of this study is the percentage of overall complications (grade 2 and higher) as stated by the modified Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications., Discussion: This is the first randomized controlled trial designed to compare RATE with open transthoracic esophagectomy as surgical treatment for resectable esophageal cancer. If our hypothesis is proven correct, RATE will result in a lower percentage of postoperative complications, lower blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, but with at least similar oncologic outcomes and better postoperative quality of life compared with open transthoracic esophagectomy. The study started in January 2012. Follow-up will be 5 years. Short-term results will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient., Trial Registration: Dutch trial register: NTR3291 ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01544790.