No abstract

Background: Cervical anastomosis and thoracic anastomosis are used for gastric tube reconstruction after esophagectomy for cancer. This systematic review was conducted in order to identify randomized trials that compare cervical with thoracic anastomosis. Methods: A literature search for randomized trials was performed in the following databases: Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Results: A total of 4 trials were included. All studies had a small sample size and were of moderate quality. One trial was excluded from the meta-analysis. The following outcomes were significantly associated with a cervical anastomosis: recurrent laryngeal nerve trauma (OR: 7.14; 95% CI: 1.75–29.14; p = 0.006) and anastomotic leakage (OR: 3.43; 95% CI: 1.09–10.78; p = 0.03). None of the following outcomes were associated with the location of the anastomosis: pulmonary complications (OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.13–5.59; p = 0.87), perioperative mortality (OR: 1.24; 95% CI: 0.35–4.41; p = 0.74), benign stricture formation (OR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.17–3.87; p = 0.79) or tumor recurrence (OR: 2.01; 95% CI: 0.68–5.91; p = 0.21). Conclusion: Cervical anastomosis could be associated with a higher leak rate and recurrent nerve trauma. However, the currently available randomized evidence is limited. Further randomized trials are needed to provide sufficient evidence for the preferred location of the anastomosis after esophagectomy.

BackgroundThe minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is widely being implemented for esophageal cancer in order to reduce morbidity and improve quality of life. Non-randomized studies investigating the mid-term quality of life after MIE show conflicting results at 1-year follow-up. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine whether MIE has a continuing better mid-term 1-year quality of life than open esophagectomy (OE) indicating both a faster recovery and less procedure-related symptoms.MethodsA one-year follow-up analysis of the quality of life was conducted for patients participating in the randomized trial in which MIE was compared with OE. Late complications as symptomatic stenosis of anastomosis are also reported.ResultsQuality of life at 1 year was better in the MIE group than in the OE group for the physical component summary SF36 [50 (6; 48–53) versus 45 (9; 42–48) p .003]; global health C30 [79 (10; 76–83) versus 67 (21; 60–75) p .004]; and pain OES18 module [6 (9; 2–8) versus 16 (16; 10–22) p .001], respectively. Twenty six patients (44 %) in the MIE and 22 patients (39 %) in the OE group were diagnosed and treated for symptomatic stenosis of the anastomosis.ConclusionsThis first randomized trial shows that MIE is associated with a better mid-term one-year quality of life compared to OE.

BackgroundThere is a rise in incidence of esophageal carcinoma due to increasing incidence of adenocarcinoma. Probably the only curative option to date is the use of neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgical resection. Traditional open esophageal resection is associated with a high morbidity and mortality rate. Furthermore, this approach involves long intensive care unit stay, in-hospital stay and long recovery period. Minimally invasive esophagectomy could reduce the morbidity and accelerate the post-operative recovery.Methods/DesignComparison between traditional open and minimally invasive esophagectomy in a multi-center, randomized trial. Patients with a resectable intrathoracic esophageal carcinoma, including the gastro-esophageal junction tumors (Siewert I) are eligible for inclusion. Prior thoracic surgery and cervical esophageal carcinoma are indications for exclusion. The surgical technique involves a right thoracotomy with lung blockade and laparotomy either with a cervical or thoracic anastomosis for the traditional group. The minimally invasive procedure involves a right thoracoscopy in prone position with a single lumen tube and laparoscopy either with a cervical or thoracic anastomosis. All patients in both groups will undergo identical pre-operative and post-operative protocol. Primary endpoint of this study are post-operative respiratory complications within the first two post-operative weeks confirmed by clinical, radiological and sputum culture data. Secondary endpoints are the operative data, the post-operative data and oncological data such as quality of the specimen and survival. Operative data include duration of the operation, blood loss and conversion to open procedure. Post-operative data include morbidity (major and minor), quality of life tests and hospital stay.Based on current literature and the experience of all participating centers, an incidence of pulmonary complications for 57% in the traditional arm and 29% in the minimally invasive arm, it is estimated that per arm 48 patients are needed. This is based on a two-sided significance level (alpha) of 0.05 and a power of 0.80. Knowing that approximately 20% of the patients will be excluded, we will randomize 60 patients per arm.DiscussionThe TIME-trial is a prospective, multi-center, randomized study to define the role of minimally invasive esophageal resection in patients with resectable intrathoracic and junction esophageal cancer.Trial registration (Netherlands Trial Register)NTR2452

In this substudy of a randomized trial comparing minimally invasive and conventional open esophagectomies for cancer, significantly better preserved leukocyte counts and IL-8 levels were observed in the MIE group compared to the open group. Both findings can be related to fewer respiratory infections found postoperatively in the MIE group. Moreover, significant differences in the prolactin levels at 168 h after surgery imply that the stress response is better preserved in the MIE group. These findings indicate that less surgical trauma could lead to better preserved acute-phase and stress responses and fewer clinical manifestations of respiratory infections.