Esophageal cancer surgery, comprising esophagectomy with radical lymphadenectomy, is a complex procedure associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol which aims to improve perioperative care, minimize complications, and accelerate recovery is showing promise for achieving better perioperative outcomes. ERAS is a multimodal approach that has been reported to shorten the length of hospital stay, reduce surgical stress response, decrease morbidity, and expedite recovery. While ERAS components straddle preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods, they need to be seen in continuum and not as isolated elements. In this review, we elaborate on the components of an ERAS protocol after esophagectomy including preoperative nutrition, prehabilitation, counselling, smoking and alcohol cessation, cardiopulmonary evaluation, surgical technique, anaesthetic management, intra-and postoperative fluid management and pain relief, mobilization and physiotherapy, enteral and oral feeding, removal of drains, and several other components. We also share our own institutional protocol for ERAS following esophageal resections.

Background Large studies comparing totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIE) with laparoscopically assisted (hybrid) oesophagectomy are lacking. Although randomized trials have compared TMIE invasive with open oesophagectomy, daily clinical practice does not always resemble the results reported in such trials. The aim of the present study was to compare complications after totally minimally invasive, hybrid and open Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy in patients with oesophageal cancer. Methods The study was performed using data from the International Esodata Study Group registered between February 2015 and December 2019. The primary outcome was pneumonia, and secondary outcomes included the incidence and severity of anastomotic leakage, (major) complications, duration of hospital stay, escalation of care, and 90-day mortality. Data were analysed using multivariable multilevel models. Results Some 8640 patients were included between 2015 and 2019. Patients undergoing TMIE had a lower incidence of pneumonia than those having hybrid (10.9 versus 16.3 per cent; odds ratio (OR) 0.56, 95 per cent c.i. 0.40 to 0.80) or open (10.9 versus 17.4 per cent; OR 0.60, 0.42 to 0.84) oesophagectomy, and had a shorter hospital stay (median 10 (i.q.r. 8–16) days versus 14 (11–19) days (P = 0.041) and 11 (9–16) days (P = 0.027) respectively). The rate of anastomotic leakage was higher after TMIE than hybrid (15.1 versus 10.7 per cent; OR 1.47, 1.01 to 2.13) or open (15.1 versus 7.3 per cent; OR 1.73, 1.26 to 2.38) procedures. Conclusion Compared with hybrid and open Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy, TMIE resulted in a lower pneumonia rate, a shorter duration of hospital stay, but higher anastomotic leakage rates. Therefore, no clear advantage was seen for either TMIE, hybrid or open Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy when performed in daily clinical practice.

No abstract

Esophageal cancer incidence is growing worldwide, especially adenocarcinomas in the western world. Outcomes overall are universally poor, with the best survival seen in earlier stages of the disease, where surgery is the mainstay of treatment.Although squamous cell cancers and adenocarcinomas of the esophagus have different etiology, clinical features, biological behavior and prognosis, earlier research studies have frequently combined the two histologies. Several trials in the past three

PURPOSE The 2018 WHO health workforce report analyzing gender equity in 104 countries reported that although women constituted 70% of the workers, they were less likely to be employed full-time and faced a 28% gender pay gap. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has affected professional as well as personal lives of physicians. We conducted a survey among Indian physicians to understand this impact. METHODS A 31-point anonymized survey to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and resultant lockdown on physicians' domestic responsibilities was disseminated via e-mail and text messaging applications. Our aim was to evaluate whether the impact was gender-based and to look for differences in aspects of domestic work, childcare, and professional commitments. RESULTS We obtained 1,041 responses, of which 643 identified themselves as men and 393 as women. An increase in the domestic responsibilities during the lockdown was confirmed by 90% of the women compared with 82% men. More women than men were solely responsible for domestic chores (38.7% v 23.7%), managed their children's education (74% v 31%), and felt an adverse impact of the pandemic on their professional work (60.8% v 42.6%). Fewer women's spouses (57/359) than men's (174/594, P = .00001) were forced to take leave or work reduced hours, and double the proportion of women (3.5% v 1.5%) had to quit their jobs to manage responsibilities at home. CONCLUSION As the COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown measures threw newer challenges, more women physicians than men (81% v 63%) shouldered the burden of increased domestic work and childcare. This survey highlights the need to re-examine the specific challenges faced by women physicians and identify means to support and empower them.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract