The objective of this systematic review is to identify key components of enhanced recovery protocols (ERP) that lead to improved length of hospital stay (LOS) following esophagectomy. Relevant electronic databases were searched for studies comparing clinical outcome from esophagectomy followed by a conventional pathway versus ERP. Relevant outcome measures were compared and metaregression was performed to identify the key ERP components associated with reduced in LOS. Thirteen publications were included, ERP was associated with no changes in in-hospital mortality, total complications, anastomotic leak, or pulmonary complications compared with a conventional pathway, however LOS was reduced in the ERP group. Metaregression identified that immediate extubation was associated with reduced LOS (OR = -0.51, 95%CI -0.77 to -0.25; P < 0.01). Several postoperative factors were associated with a significant reduction in length of hospital stay, and in order of most important were (i) gastrograffin swallow ≤5 days (OR = -4.27, 95%CI -4.50 to -4.03); (ii) mobilization on postoperative day ≤1 (OR = -2.49, 95%CI -2.63 to -2.34); (iii) removal of urinary catheter ≤2 days (OR = -0.99, 95%CI -1.15 to -0.84); (iv) oral intake with at least sips of fluid ≤1 day (OR = -0.96, 95%CI -1.24 to -0.68); (v) enteral diet with feeding jejunostomy or gastrostomy ≤ 1 day (OR = -0.57, 95%CI -0.80 to -0.35) and (vi) epidural removal ≤ 4 days (OR = -0.17, 95%CI -0.27 to -0.07). Several core ERP components and principles appear to be associated with LOS reduction. These elements should form a part of the core ERP for the specialty, while surgical teams incorporate other elements through an iterative process.

SUMMARY Centralization of care has improved outcomes in esophagogastric (EG) cancer surgery. However, specialist surgical centers often work within clinical silos, with little transfer of knowledge and experience. Although variation exists in multiple dimensions of perioperative care, the differences in operative technique are rarely studied. An esophageal anastomosis workshop was held to identify areas of common and differing practice within the operative technique. Surgeons showed videos of their anastomosis technique by open and minimally invasive surgery. Each video was followed by a discussion. Surgeons from 10 different EG cancer centers attended. Eight key technical differences and learning points were identified and discussed: the optimum diameter of the gastric conduit; avoiding ischemia in the gastric conduit; minimizing esophageal trauma; the use of an esophageal mucosal collar; omental wrapping; intraoperative leak testing; ideal diameter of the circular stapler and the growing use of linear stapled anastomoses. The workshop received positive feedback from participants and on 2 years follow-up, 40% stated that they believed that the learning of tips and techniques during the workshop has contributed to lowering their anastomotic leak rate. Many differences exist in surgical technique. The reasons for, and crucially the significance of, these differences must be discussed and examined. Workshops provide a forum for peer-to-peer collaborative learning to reflect on one’s own practice and improve surgical technique. These changes can, in turn, generate incremental improvements in patient care and postoperative outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Prehabilitation programmes aim to optimise patients preoperatively to enhance post-operative recovery and outcome. Previous studies have demonstrated that prehabilitation can improve pre-operative fitness and can overcome the negative impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy on fitness. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of prehabilitation on the tolerance of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with gastric and oesophageal cancer.Methods: Patients with gastric or oesophageal cancer from two centres were compared; one provided a multimodal prehabilitation programme and one did not offer prehabilitation. The parameters evaluated for comparison between the two groups included age, Karnofsky and ASA scores, tumor location and histology, cycles of chemotherapy and radiotehrapy that were completed.Results: 135 patients were included in this study; 81 patients from the prehabilitation cohort and 54 in the control cohort. Compared with the control group, the prehabilitation group demonstrated improved rate of chemotherapy completion (p¼0.002). According to the multivariate analysis, the prehabilitation and radiotherapy were associated with improved tolerance of chemotherapy.Conclusions: Prehabilitation has previously been shown to negate the negative impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on pre-operative fitness. In parallel to this, this study has shown that prehabilitation is also associated with better tolerance of chemotherapy. Further research is needed to establish the long-term impact of prehabilitation on oncological outcomes.