Abstract
Background
Esophagectomy is the mainstay of therapy for esophageal cancer but is a complex operation that is associated with significantly high morbidity and mortality rates. The primary aim of this study is to report our perioperative outcomes, and long-term survival of Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy (MILE).
Methods
IRB approved retrospective study of 100 consecutive patients who underwent elective MILE from September 2013 to November 2017 at University of Florida, Jacksonville.
Results
Primary diagnosis was esophageal cancer (n = 96) and benign esophageal disease (n = 4). Anastomotic leak rate was observed in 6%; 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 2% and 3%, respectively. The mean length of hospital stay was 10.3 days; 87 patients were discharged to home, while 12 patients were discharged to rehabilitation facility, and there was one in-hospital mortality secondary to graft necrosis. At a mean follow-up was 37 months (2–74), the 3- and 5-year overall survivals are 63.9 ± 5.0% (95% CI 53.3–72.7%) and 60.5 ± 5.3% (95% CI 49.4–69.9%), respectively. The 3- and 5-year disease-free survival is 75.0 ± 4.8% (95% CI 64.2–83.0%) and 70.4 ± 5.5% (95% CI 58.0–80.0%).
Conclusion
MILE can be performed with low perioperative mortality, and favorable long-term overall and disease-free survival.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
The incidence of esophageal cancer continues to increase in the USA with a profound shift in the prevalence of adenocarcinoma [1]. The overall 5-year survival rate has improved but is still reported to be less than 30%; and even among those with limited nodal disease, 5-year survival is expected to be less than 50% [1,2,3]. Surgery remains the cornerstone for a multimodal approach to esophageal cancer. Despite improvements in technique and perioperative care, the reported mortality rate is 8–20% [4, 5], and anastomotic leak rates of around 11% following esophagectomy are amongst the highest of any gastrointestinal anastomosis [6]. The first description of Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy (MILE) was in the early 1990s by Cuschieri et. al. and DePaula et al. As this technique has been refined, perioperative outcomes have significantly improved while demonstrating equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery [9,10,11,12,13,14].
The primary objective of the study is to report our technique, perioperative outcomes, and long-term survival of Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy (MILE).
Methods
This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data that was approved by our institutional review board and included all patients undergoing MILE performed at University of Florida, Jacksonville, by a single surgeon (ZTA) from September 2013 to November 2017 (IRB #201600651). Demographics, preoperative staging, neoadjuvant treatment and postoperative course was assessed. Intraoperative data including complete video footages of the operation was performed on all patients.
Surgical approach
All patients underwent a subtotal esophagectomy with proximal gastrectomy using minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
Abdominal portion
Five trocars are used for the abdominal portion of the operation that includes creation of a tubular gastric conduit, lymphadenectomy, and placement of a feeding jejunostomy tube, if not preformed previously. The patient is placed in slight reverse Trendelenburg position and a staging diagnostic laparoscopy is performed. The dissection commences by opening the gastrocolic omentum at the level of the pyloric antrum. Meticulous attention is paid to the origin and course of the right gastroepiploic artery (Fig. 1). The dissection then heads to the right side mobilizing the proximal transverse colon by dividing its attachments to the inferior edge of the liver and retroperitoneum to expose the second portion of the duodenum. A Kocher’s maneuver is routinely performed so the pylorus can be easily brought up to the diaphragmatic hiatus. The greater curve of the stomach is mobilized by dividing the gastrocolic omentum and the short gastric vessels heading towards the base of the left crus. Difficulty in exposure can be mitigated by tilting the table in the left side up position, helping to open the space between the stomach and spleen to facilitate division of the short gastric vessels and minimize possible traction injury of the stomach. Vascularized omental flap is created to latter serve as an omental buttress for the intrathoracic anastomosis.
The gastrohepatic ligament is opened heading towards the base of the right crus. The esophagus if lifted off its bed using sharp dissection and the gastroesophageal junction is circumferentially mobilized. The right crus is routinely transected to widen the size of the hiatus. A Penrose drain is placed around the distal esophagus which helps with identification and thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization. En-bloc celiac lymphadenectomy is performed; the left gastric artery and vein are divided using a laparoscopic linear stapler (Fig. 2).
A four cm Heineke-Mikulicz pyloroplasty is performed in all cases. The gastric conduit (4–5 cm wide) is constructed 4 cm proximal to the pylorus using multiple applications of the laparoscopic linear stapler. The distal margin is determined based upon tumor location. The tip of the gastric conduit is anchored to the distal gastric staple line with 2 stitches of 0 silk to facilitate delivery of the conduit into the chest. We routinely place a 12 French feeding jejunostomy in the left upper quadrant.
Thoracic portion
The thoracic portion of the case has three primary steps which include esophageal resection, mediastinal lymphadenectomy and creation of esophagogastrostomy. The patient is placed in a left lateral decubitus position well supported and padded on the operating table. A single lung ventilation is used via a double lumen endotracheal tube. A right video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) 5-trocar approach with CO2 insufflation at 8 mmHg is used. The inferior pulmonary ligament is incised to the level of the inferior pulmonary vein and the right lung reflected anteriorly. The mediastinal pleura is incised, and the esophagus is circumferentially mobilized together with the surrounding lymph nodes. We staple the esophagus using the superior 12 mm anteriorly placed trocar. The azygous vein is selectively divided using the laparoscopic linear stapler.
The subcarinal nodal tissue is taken en-bloc with the specimen when technically feasible or is otherwise taken separately (Fig. 3). The inferolateral incision is extended to a 4-cm incision and a wound protector is placed. The gastric conduit is pulled into the right thoracic cavity maintain the right orientation. The specimen is removed and sent for pathologic confirmation of a negative margin.
The 25-mm OrVil™ (Covidien, Minneapolis, MN, USA) is introduced orally and passed through the esophageal stump via a small opening that is made at or just next to the staple line, leaving the anvil in place. The staples line at the tip of the gastric conduit is excised using Harmonic Shears (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA). A mechanical circular stapler 25 mm DST XL EEA (Covidien, Minneapolis, MN, USA) is passed through the gastrotomy, and an end-to-side esophagogastrostomy is constructed (Fig. 4). Prior to closure of the gastrotomy a nasogastric tube is passed to the anastomosis under direct vision. The gastrotomy is closed using the laparoscopic linear stapler. A leak test is performed via the nasogastric tube, and the nasogastric tube is gently advanced several centimeters passed the anastomosis. The previously mentioned omental flap is then delivered into the chest and is laid over the anastomosis and the lesser curvature staple line (Fig. 5). Two sutures area placed to anchor the conduit to the paraspinal pleura as to prevent torsion of the conduit.
Postoperative course
All patients are admitted to the Surgical Intensive Care Unit (ICU), with a dedicated surgical intensivist participating in the management. A standardized postoperative protocol is used (Fig. 6). Patients are discharged with jejunostomy tube feeding and close follow-up with the MILE team. Close outpatient monitoring with routine telephone calls and clinic visits with regards to perioperative surgical symptoms (i.e., hydration, enteral nutrition tolerance), and activities of daily living, are the primary goals of therapy. Oral intake is initiated on the 1st postoperative visit and gradually advanced as tolerated.
Esophagectomy Outcomes
A standardized surgical outcomes database was prospectively created to collect data for a retrospective chart review. Demographics, laboratory and radiographic studies, operative details, and tumor-related variables were recorded. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were extracted, including postoperative morbidities, length of stay, and mortality. Descriptive data were collected with all measured parameters. Quantitative data were expressed as mean and with min–max range, if applicable. Also, the data set is built in chronological order and presented in four quartiles (25 patients each) for comparison and better highlight stages of possible improvement. Kaplan–Meier survival analyses were used to calculate overall and disease-free survival.
Follow-up
After discharge all patients were regularly evaluated at the clinic. In the first year, follow-up consisted of evaluations every 3 months. In the second and third year, follow-up took place every 6 months and annual visits were held during the fourth and fifth year.
Results
Demographics and comorbidities are demonstrated in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. One-way ANOVA analysis revealed no significant differences across the four quartiles with respect to age [F (3,96) = 0.144, p = 0.934], weight [F (3,96) = 0.318, p = 0.813], or BMI [F (3,96) = 1.184, p = 0.320]. Chi-square analysis revealed no significant differences across the four quartiles with respect to sex [χ2 (3,100) = 1.50, p = 0.682], race [χ2 (3,100) = 2.17, p = 0.537], or BMI over 30 [χ2 (3,100) = 0.213, p = 0.976].
Disease characteristics
Ninety-six patients underwent MILE for esophageal cancer (Adenocarcinoma, n = 75; Squamous Cell Carcinoma, n = 21), while 4 patients underwent resection for benign disease (End Stage Achalasia, n = 3; Large Leiomyoma, n = 1). Thirty-six patients had an enteral feeding access, while one patient had an esophageal stent placed prior to the esophagectomy (Table 3).
Intraoperative findings
There was no conversion to exploratory laparotomy for the abdominal part of the procedure. Four patients were converted to thoracotomy. One patient had an emergent thoracotomy for bleeding from an aberrant pulmonary vein branch which was controlled, and the esophagogastric anastomosis was delayed until 2 days later. This was the only patient in the series to receive intra operative blood transfusion. Other reasons for conversion were dense mediastinal adhesions (n = 1), loss of thoracic domain in morbidly obese patient (n = 1), and inability to align the EEA with the anvil is an obese male patient with thick chest wall (more than 15 cm) (n = 1). One-way ANOVA analysis revealed a significant difference across the four quartiles with respect to operative time [F (3,96) = 3.963, p = 0.01]. A post hoc Tukey analysis revealed operative time for patients in quartile 1 were significantly greater than operative times for quartile 2 (p = 0.020) and quartile 3 (p = 0.019).), but no significant difference was found between quartile 1 and quartile 4 (p = 0.336). One-way ANOVA analysis revealed no significant difference across the four quartiles with respect to blood loss [F (3,96) = 1.245, p = 0.298] (Table 4).
Postoperative morbidity and mortality
There was no intraoperative mortality. The 30-day overall mortality was 2% (2/100). One patient developed graft necrosis necessitating thoracotomy for resection of the necrotic graft and creation of spit fistula. He expired 3 days later. The 2nd patient developed cardiac arrest at home two weeks after hospital discharge. There were six anastomotic leaks, and all were manged with endoscopic stent placement. Six patients required reoperation within the same admission: conduit volvulus, n = 2; compression of the conduit at the diaphragmatic hiatus by excess omental flap, n = 1; redundant sigmoid conduit causing outlet obstruction, n = 1; reoperation for delayed reconstruction of the esophagogastric anastomosis in patient with bleeding; and reoperation for the patient with graft necrosis. All reoperations with the exception for the last two patients were done using the minimally invasive approach. Postoperative complications were observed in 44 patients. Chi-square analysis revealed no significant differences across the four quartiles with respect to hospital complications [χ2 (6,100) = 8.36, p = 0.213]. There was no case of chyle leak or recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (Table 5).
The 30-day readmission rate was 8% (8/100). Reasons for readmission include aspiration pneumonia (n = 1), jejunostomy tube malfunction and pulmonary embolism (n = 1), pneumonia (n = 1), shortness of breath (n = 1), large bowel obstruction due to cecal volvulus necessitating an exploratory laparotomy and right hemicolectomy (n = 1), exacerbation of COPD (n = 1), atrial fibrillation (n = 1), and wound infection at the jejunostomy and chest tube sites needed debridement and vacuum assisted closure of the wound (n = 1), and atrial fibrillation (n = 1). There was one 90 days readmission and reoperation for post esophagectomy hernia. The 90 days mortality was 3%. The patient died from respiratory failure at the rehab facility. Pathological outcomes are shown in Table 6. One patient had a positive proximal margin despite 3 proximal resections, while one patient had T4b (involving the aorta).
Follow-up
Mean follow-up was 37 months (2–74). Five patients were excluded from overall survival analysis; three patients were excluded for being lost to follow-up and two patients were excluded for perioperative deaths. Ninety-five patients were analyzed for overall and disease-free survival by the Kaplan Meier method (Figs. 7 and 8). The 3- and 5-year overall survivals are 63.9 ± 5.0% (95% CI 53.3–72.7%) and 60.5 ± 5.3% (95% CI 49.4–69.9%), respectively. The 3- and 5-year disease-free survival is 75.0 ± 4.8% (95% CI 64.2–83.0%) and 70.4 ± 5.5% (95% CI 58.0–80.0%).
Five patients are alive with cancer recurrence; mediastinal, n = 4, retroperitoneal, n = 1, and are currently undergoing treatment. The recurrence occurred 6–48 months after surgical resection. Thirty- five patients are dead at a mean 16.3 months (range 4–42) after surgery. In 16 patients, the death was non-cancer related, while in 19 patients it was related to cancer progression (one patient with T4b disease) or cancer recurrence. The recurrence occurred at a mean of 12.4 months (range 3–34) after surgery, while death occurred 16.6 months (range 6–39) after surgery.
Discussion
Our experience has shown that MILE can be performed with an acceptable morbidity and mortality that is comparable to most recent published series [15, 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37]. The 3 and 5-year overall and disease-free survival rate observed in our present study is similar or exceeds the results of most recent open or minimally invasive esophagectomy series [32, 33, 38,39,40]. Recent publication from our institute comparing outcomes for patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database showed no differences between groups for mortality, readmission, discharge destination, or mean operative time. We had significantly fewer complications (16.7% vs 33.3%; p = 0.003), fewer reoperations (6.4% vs 14.5%; p = 0.046), and shorter hospital length of stay (10.3 vs 13.1 days; p = 0.001) [41]. The four quartiles in our series were evenly matched with regards to age, sex, race, weight, BMI and comorbidities. There was no significant difference in the complication rates including anastomotic leak and blood loss across the 4 quartiles. The operative time often considered a benchmark of proficiency was significantly longer in the quartile 1 compared to the quartile 2 and 3 but to difference to quartile 4. The fundamental reasons for increased operative time are illusive but could include multiple issues such as increased set-up time, patient’s body mass index, abdominal adiposity, previous abdominal surgeries necessitating lysis of adhesions, tumor location or adherence to vital structures, delays in reporting pathological frozen section analysis, patient’s inability to tolerate single lung ventilation, unexperienced nursing and surgical technician team, PGY level of resident participating in the case, fellow participation, or an intrinsic inefficiency of the surgeon’s technique. Lorimer et al. in a retrospective review of 200 minimally invasive esophagectomy cases found that operative time was significantly longer with conversion to open surgery and total esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis [42]. Increased BMI was associated with longer operative time. After accounting for other factors, operative experience was still significantly associated with shorter operative time [42].
The mean number of lymph nodes retrieved was 20 (9–34) with no significant difference across the quartiles. Our standard lymphadenectomy results is comparable to other groups who performed MIE [32, 33, 43], and it surpasses the median number of 14 lymph nodes yielded in the CROSS study [40].We have been able to achieve excellent oncological results in terms of R0 resections, and our long-term follow-up yields a meaningful data regarding the long-term oncological outcomes after MIE.
Pyloric drainage after esophagectomy is a controversial topic. We routinely perform pyloroplasty and had no technical complications related to the procedure mainly leaks or stricture formation. Nobel et al. in a retrospective review of 283 MIE performed between 2011 and 2017; of these, 126 (45%) had drainage (53 Botulinum injection and 73 surgical) [44]. No significant difference in the rate of postoperative complications, pneumonia, or anastomotic leak was observed between groups. At 6 and 12 months, patients that received Botulinum injection and surgical drainage had significantly more symptoms than no drainage (p < 0.0001) and higher need for pyloric dilation at 6 months (p = 0.007). They concluded that pyloric drainage was not significantly associated with lower postoperative complications or long-term symptoms [44]. Two recent systematic reviews addressing the role of pyloric drainage after esophagectomy were inconclusive. However, both recommended large multi-institutional, prospective studies are required to definitively answer this question [45, 46]
Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy has a fairly steep learning curve, even for surgeons already skilled in minimally invasive techniques. The existence of such learning curve has been described previously and appears to affect several aspects of the procedure. Tapias et al. reported that the operation and perioperative care of at least 35–40 patients is necessary before significant improvement in parameters such as operative time and length of stay is achieved [47]. The learning curve affects also the performance of a complete lymphadenectomy during MILE, with optimal lymph node retrieval plateauing after the first 25 cases [48].
The TIME trial is the only published randomized controlled trial, which compared MILE to open transthoracic esophagectomy [12]. In this trial, a reduced incidence of pulmonary infections, reduced hospital stay, and better short-term quality of life were observed. A meta-analysis, which compared MIE with open surgery for esophageal cancer concluded that MIE was superior in reducing in-hospital mortality and incidence of complications like arrhythmias and pulmonary complications [49]. Recent systematic review and meta-analysis provided evidence for long-term survival benefits (18% lower 5-year all-cause mortality) after MIE compared to open esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer [50].
Technical points
We favor the Ivor Lewis esophagectomy as it allows extending the resection for adequate proximal and distal margins with minimal concerns regarding the length of the conduit to reach the neck for the anastomosis especially among patients with short conduit, high riding clavicle, or those with short, thick neck. The Ivor Lewis approach also allows for direct esophageal visualization and dissection, secure hemostasis, precise lymph node dissection, radial margin clearance, and the ability to wrap the omental flap around the anastomosis under direct visualization. Avoiding the cervical approach reduces the risk of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and postoperative aspiration risk. There are few technical steps aspects that we consider important:
-
1.
Easy and rapid identification of the right gastroepiploic bundle is done by dissecting the pre-pyloric gastrocolic ligament. Anatomically, this area is the shortest distance between the gastric and colonic border. Using this technique, identification of the vascular bundle and access to the lesser sac can quickly be performed without variability even in patients with high BMI. We believe this technique protects the vascular bundle with no touch technique as we mobilize the greater curvature of the stomach by anterior and downward gentle retraction of the posterior wall of the stomach.
-
2.
We routinely create a healthy wide omental flap that will wrap around the esophagogastric anastomosis and cover the gastric conduit staple line. Many studies have demonstrated the use of pedicled omental flap for reinforcing the anastomotic suture line significantly reduces the incidence of anastomotic leak after esophagogastrectomy [51, 52]. We recommend delivering the omental flap to the chest only after the anastomosis is completed to avoid overcrowding, allowing for better visualization and minimize the risk of soft tissue interposition when performing the esophagogastric anastomosis.
-
3.
The overall incidence of post esophagectomy hiatal hernia (HH) is 7%-10% and is similar between the open and MIE group [53]. Since patient #45 presented with an incarcerated colon into the left chest cavity, we changed our technique and currently we do not incise the left curs as it is possible that maintenance of this muscle might reduce the risk of post esophagectomy hernia formation.
-
4.
Marking the anterior gastric conduit with a suture helps to maintain orientation while delivering the conduit into the chest.
-
5.
Care is taken to avoid delivery of excess conduit to the chest to minimize congestion at the hiatus and possible redundancy of the conduit in the chest and outlet obstruction.
-
6.
Volvulus of the conduit is a known complication after esophagectomy [54] as the minimally invasive approach generally is associated with less adhesion formation. We had 2 patients (#8 and #86) with posterior volvulus of the conduit. Since then, we place 2 sutures to anchor the gastric conduit to the paraspinal pleura. The maneuver allows for stabilization of the conduit and preventing volvulus. It remains to be seen as we are add more patients to our database and long-term follow-up whether technique would reduce the incidence of volvulus of the conduit.
-
7.
In order to avoid twisting of the anastomosis, we routinely reposition the camera to the more anterior caudal trocar to allow for better visualization of the EEA-Anvil locking mechanism, proper alignment of the anastomosis and the conduit staple line
The main limitation of our study is its retrospective nature without a control open esophagectomy arm or randomization. The strength of our study is the length of follow-up, excellent 3- and 5-year disease-free and overall survival, and technical details related to the procedure.
Conclusion
In conclusion, MIE can be performed safely with low postoperative mortality rate and favorable overall and disease-free survival.
References
National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Accessed 10 May 2018
Mitzman B, Lutfi W, Wang CH, Krantz S, Howington JA, Kim KW (2017) Minimally invasive esophagectomy provides equivalent survival to open esophagectomy: an analysis of the national cancer database. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 29(2):244–253
Enzinger PC, Mayer RJ (2003) Esophageal cancer. N Eng J Med 349:2241–2252
Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, Stukel TA, Lucas FL, Batista I, Welch HG, Wennberg DE (2002) Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Eng J Med 346:1128–1137
Kassis ES, Kosinski AS, Ross P Jr, Koppes KE, Donahue JM, Daniel VC (2013) Predictors of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: an analysis of the society of thoracic surgeons general thoracic database. Ann Thoracic Surg 96:1919–1926
Ferguson MK, Martin TR, Reeder LB, Olak J (1997) Mortality after esophagectomy: risk factor analysis. World J Surg. 21(6):599–603 (discussion 603–604)
Cuschieri A, Shimi S, Banting S (1992) Endoscopic oesophagectomy through a right thoracoscopic approach. J R Coll Surg Edinb 37(1):7–11
DePaula AL, Hashiba K, Ferreira EA, de Paula RA, Grecco E (1995) Laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy with esophagogastroplasty. Surg Laparosc Endosc 5(1):1–5
Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Catalano PJ, Swanson S, De Hoyos A, Maddaus MA, Nguyen NT, Benson AB, Fernando HC (2009) Results of a phase II multicenter study of MIE (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study E2202). J Clin Oncol. 27(suppl):15s (Abstract 4516)
Palanivelu C, Prakash A, Senthilkumar R, Senthilnathan P, Parthasarathi R, Rajan PS, Venkatachlam S (2006) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: thoracoscopic mobilization of the esophagus and mediastinal lymphadenectomy in prone position. An experience of 130 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 203:7–16
Verhage R, Hazebroek E, Boone J, Van Hillegersberg R (2009) Minimally invasive surgery compared to open procedures in esophagectomy for cancer: a systemic review of the literature. Minerva Chir 64:135–146
Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW, Bonavina L, Rosman C, Garcia JR, Gisbertz SS, Klinkenbijl JH, Hollmann MW, de Lange ES, Bonjer HJ, van der Peet DL, Cuesta MA (2012) Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a mutlicentre, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Lancet 379:1887–1892
Dantoc MM, Cox MR, Eslick GD (2012) Does mininally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) provide comparable oncologic outcomes to open techniques? A systemic review. J Gastrointestinal Surg 16:486–494
Dantoc MM, Cox MR, Eslick GD (2012) Evidence to support the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a meta analysis. Arch Surg 147:768–776
Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O, Levy RM, Keeley S, Shende M, Christie NA, Weksler B, Landreneau RJ, Abbas G, Schuchert MJ, Nason KS (2012) Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg 256(1):95–103
Giugliano D, Berger A, Rosato E, Palazzo F (2016) Total minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: approaches and outcomes. Langenbecks Arch Surg 401(6):747–756
Mungo B, Lidor A, Stem M, Molena D et al (2016) Early experience and lessons learned in a new minimally invasive esophagectomy program. Surg Endosc 30(4):1692–1698
Luketich JD, Alvelo-Rivera M, Buenaventura PO, Christie NA, McCaughan JS, Litle VR, Schauer PR, Close JM, Fernando HC (2003) Minimally invasive esophagectomy. Outcomes in 222 patients. Ann Surg 238(4):486–494 discussion 494–495
Bizekis C, Kent MS, Luketich JD, Buenaventura PO, Landreneau RJ, Schuchert MJ, Alvelo-Rivera M (2006) Initial experience with minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 82(2):402–407
Rajan PS, Vaithiswaran V, Rajapandian S, Senthilnathan P, Praveenraj P, Palanivelu C (2010) Minimally invasive oesophagectomy for carcinoma oesophagus—approaches and options in high volume tertiary center. J Ind Med Assoc 188(10):642–644
Nguyen NT, Hinojosa MW, Smith BR, Chang KJ, Gray J, Hoyt D (2008) Minimally invasive esophagectomy lessons learned from 104 operations. Ann Surg 248(6):1081–1091
Ben-David K, Sarosi GA, Cendan JC, Howard D, Rossidis G, Hochwald SN (2012) Decreasing morbidity and mortality in 100 consecutive minimally invasive esophagectomies. Surg Endosc 26(1):162–167
Nagpal K, Ahmed K, Vats A, Yakoub D, James D, Ashrafian H, Darzi A, Moorthy K, Athanasiou T (2010) Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 24(7):1621–1629
Sgourakis G, Gockel I, Radtke A, Musholt TJ, Timm S, Rink A, Tsiamis A, Karaliotas C, Lang H (2010) Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy: meta-analysis of outcomes. Dig Dis Sci 55(11):3031–3040
Mamidanna R, Bottle A, Aylin P, Faiz O, Hanna GB (2012) Short term outcomes following open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer in England: a population-based national study. Ann Surg 255(2):197–203
Guo W, Ma X, Yang S, Zhu X, Qin W, Xiang J, Lerut T, Li H (2016) Combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: a meta-analysis of outcomes. Surg Endosc 30:3873–3881
Zhou C, Ma G, Li X, Li J, Yan Y, Liu P, He J, Ren Y (2015) Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 13:269
Qi W, Zixiang W, Tianwei Z, Shuai F, Sai Z, Gang S, Ming W (2018) Long-term outcomes of 530 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients with minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. J Surg Oncol 117(5):957–969
Chen L, Liu X, Wang R, Wang Y, Zhang T, Gao D, Gao L (2017) Minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer according to the location of the tumor: experience of 251 patients. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 17:54–60
Straatman J, van der Wielen N, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, Rosman C, Roig J, Scheepers JJ, Cuesta MA, Luyer MD, van Berge Henegouwen MI, van Workum F, Gisbertz SS, van der Peet DL (2017) Techniques and short-term outcomes for total minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophageal resection in distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancers: pooled data from six European centers. Surg Endosc 31(1):119–126
Sihag S, Kosinski AS, Gaissert HA, Wright CD, Schipper PH (2016) Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a comparison of early surgical outcomes from the society of thoracic surgeons national database. Ann Thorac Surg. 101(4):1281–1288
Tapias LF, Mathisen DJ, Wright CD, Wain JC, Gaissert HA, Muniappan A, Lanuti M, Donahue DM, Morse CR (2016) Outcomes With open and minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy after neoadjuvant therapy. Ann Thorac Surg 101(3):1097–1103
Palazzo F, Rosato EL, Chaudhary A, Evans NR, Sendecki JA, Keith S, Chojnacki KA, Yeo CJ, Berger AC (2015) Minimally invasive esophagectomy provides significant survival advantage compared with open or hybrid esophagectomy for patients with cancers of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. J Am Coll Surg 220(4):672–679
Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Franchetti Y, Catalano PJ, Swanson S, Sugarbaker DJ, De Hoyos A, Maddaus MA, Nguyen NT, Benson AB, Fernando HC (2015) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: results of a prospective phase II multicenter trial-the eastern cooperative oncology group (E2202) study. Ann Surg 261(4):702–707
Kauppi J, Räsänen J, Sihvo E, Huuhtanen R, Nelskylä K, Salo J (2015) Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: clinical outcomes for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma. Surg Endosc 29(9):2614–2619
Rizvi FH, Rizvi SS, Syed AA, Khattak S, Khan AR (2014) Minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: the first experience from Pakistan. Int J Surg Oncol 2014:864705
Noble F, Kelly JJ, Bailey IS, Byrne JP, Underwood TJ (2013) South Coast Cancer Collaboration - Oesophago-Gastric (SC3-OG) A prospective comparison of totally minimally invasive versus open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus 26(3):263–271
Burdall OC, Boddy AP, Fullick J et al (2015) A comparative study of survival after minimally invasive and open oesophagectomy. Surg Endosc 29:431–437
Shapiro J, van Lanschot JJ, Hulshof MC et al (2015) Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for oesophageal or junctional cancer (CROSS): long-term results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 16:1090–1098
van der Sluis PC, Ruurda JP, Verhage RJ et al (2015) Oncologic long-term results of robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 22:1350–1356
Gurien LA, Tepas JJ 3rd, Lind DS, Chesire DJ, Sabra MJ, Dalton BG, Awad ZT (2018) How safe is the safety net? Comparison of Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy at a safety-net hospital using the NSQIP database. J Am Coll Surg 226(4):680–684
Lorimer PD, Motz BM, Boselli DM et al (2019) Quality improvement in minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcome improvement through data review. Ann Surg Oncol 26:177–187
Spector R, Zheng Y, Yeap BY, Wee JO, Lebenthal A, Swanson SJ, Marchosky DE, Enzinger PC, Mamon HJ, Lerut A, Odze R, Srivastava A, Agoston AT, Tippayawang M, Bueno R, Brigham Esophageal Study Team (2015) The 3-hole minimally invasive esophagectomy: a safe procedure following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 27:205–215
Nobel T, Tan KS, Barbetta A et al (2019) Does pyloric drainage have a role in the era of minimally invasive esophagectomy? Surg Endosc 33:3218–3227
Gaur P, Swanson SJ (2014) Should we continue to drain the pylorus in patients undergoing an esophagectomy? Dis Esophagus 27(6):568–573
Arya S, Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Hanna GB (2015) The impact of pyloric drainage on clinical outcome following esophagectomy: a systematic review. Dis Esophagus 28(4):326–335
Tapias LF, Morse CR (2014) Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: description of a learning curve. J Am Coll Surg 218:1130–1140
Dhamija A, Rosen JE, Dhamija A, Gould Rothberg BE, Kim AW, Detterbeck FC, Boffa DJ (2014) Learning curve to lymph node resection in minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer. Innovations (Phila) 9:286–291
Zhou C, Zhang L, Wang H, Ma X, Shi B, Chen W, He J, Wang K, Liu P, Ren Y (2015) Superiority of minimally invasive oesophagectomy in reducing in-hospital mortality of patients with resectable oesophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 10(7):e0132889
Gottlieb-Vedi E, Kauppila JH, Malietzis G, Nilsson M, Markar SR, Lagergren J (2019) Long-term survival in esophageal cancer after minimally invasive compared to open esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 270(6):1005–1017
Bhat MA, Dar MA, Lone GN, Dar AM (2006) Use of pedicled omentum in esophagogastric anastomosis for prevention of anastomotic leak. Ann Thorac Surg 82(5):1857–1862
Sepesi B, Swisher SG, Walsh GL, Correa A, Mehran RJ, Rice D, Roth J, Vaporciyan A, Hofstetter WL (2012) Omental reinforcement of the thoracic esophagogastric anastomosis: an analysis of leak and reintervention rates in patients undergoing planned and salvage esophagectomy. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 144(5):1146–1150
Brenkman HJ, Parry K, Noble F, van Hillegersberg R, Sharland D, Goense L, Kelly J, Byrne JP, Underwood TJ, Ruurda JP et al (2017) Hiatal hernia after esophagectomy for cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 103:1055–1062
Kent MS, Luketich JD, Tsai W, Churilla P, Federle M, Landreneau R, Alvelo-Rivera M, Schuchert M (2008) Revisional surgery after esophagectomy: an analysis of 43 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 86(3):975–983
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the design of work, data acquisition and analysis. All authors worked in conjunction for drafting and critically revising the manuscript. The final manuscript was submitted after review from all the above listed authors. All the authors are in agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosures
The authors Ziad T. Awad, Syed Abbas, Ruchir Puri, Brian Dalton and David J. Chesire declare that they have nothing to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplementary file1 (MP4 819680 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Awad, Z.T., Abbas, S., Puri, R. et al. Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy (MILE): technique and outcomes of 100 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 34, 3243–3255 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07529-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07529-0