Abstract
Oesophagectomy is one of the most challenging surgical operations. Potential for morbidity and mortality is high. Minimally invasive techniques have been introduced in an attempt to reduce postoperative complications and recovery times. Debate continues over whether these techniques decrease morbidity and whether the quality of the oncological resection is compromised. Globally, minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) has been shown to be feasible and safe, with outcomes similar to open oesophagectomy. There are no controlled trials comparing the outcomes of MIO with open techniques, just a few comparative studies and many single institution series from which assessments of the current role of MIO have been made. The reported improvements of MIO include reduced blood loss, shortened time in high dependency care and decreased length of hospital stay. In comparative studies there is no clear reduction in respiratory complications, although larger series suggest that MIO may have a benefit. Although MIO approaches report less lymph node retrieval compared with open extended lymphadenectomy, MIO cancer outcomes are comparable. MIO will be a major component of the future oesophageal surgeons’ armamentarium, but should continue to be carefully assessed. Randomized trials comparing MIO versus open resection in oesophageal cancer are urgently needed: two phase III trials are recruiting, the TIME and the MIRO trials.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download conference paper PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Introduction
With increasing experience and skills at performing laparoscopic and thoracoscopic surgery in the past decade, minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) is increasingly being used for surgical management of oesophageal cancer (OC). By the early 1990s, some surgeons had developed and used protocols for thoracoscopic oesophagectomy, initially restricting its use to T1 and T2 OC without neoadjuvant chemoradiation (Akaishi et al. 1996; Gossot et al. 1993). However, with time, indications for thoracoscopic oesophagectomy were expanded to include more advanced OC, irrespective of neoadjuvant treatment. The techniques in MIO vary from totally minimally invasive to hybrid procedures where one stage of the operation is performed either by thoracoscopy or laparoscopy. Unlike other minimally invasive procedures, to date, MIO has not been broadly adopted. It is still considered one of the most complex gastrointestinal surgical operations, and many questions remain unanswered as to the real advantages of applying minimally invasive techniques, particularly in a disease which is frequently locally advanced and highly lethal. Mortality, morbidity, oncological radicality, reproducibility and the cost of the procedure are some of the topics under debate. Recent reviews (Butler et al. 2011; Gemmill and McCulloch 2007; Nagpal et al. 2010; Sgourakis et al. 2010) focusing on the role of MIO have emphasized that the benefits of this approach are controversial due to the complexity involved. Several comparative studies have been conducted between MIO and open oesophagectomy, but uncertainty about the advantages of one technique over the other persists due to the absence of published randomized trials. The question about the best approach for oesophagectomy in OC is consequently still to be resolved.
2 MIO Techniques
As there has never been a consensus regarding the superiority of any of the various open oesophagectomy techniques, it is not surprising that there is no agreement on the best MIO approach either. Minimally invasive adapatations of every conceivable approach to oesophageal resection have been reported (Table 1.1).
Transhiatal MIO utilizes laparoscopic abdominal dissection and preparation of the gastric conduit followed by a cervical anastomosis created via a traditional open approach in the neck. Mediastinal dissection of perioesophageal lymph nodes, including those in the subcarinal station, can be assessed through the hiatus using the lighting and magnifications afforded by the laparoscopic technology (Swanstrom and Hansen 1997). The oesophageal specimen can be removed through the neck incision. Some surgeons prefer to combine the laparoscopic tranhiatal approach with a mini-laparotomy to facilitate gastric tube creation as well as to remove the specimen. Finally, the oesophagus can be also removed from the mediastinum via an inversion technique with or without division of the vagus nerve (Jobe et al. 2004; Peyre et al. 2007).
Many surgeons prefer a thoracoscopic approach, typically performed through the right chest, with patients positioned in lateral decubitus or prone positions (Dapri et al. 2008; Fabian et al. 2008). Thoracoscopy can be used as a part of a 3 stage MIO, where the procedure begins in the chest and ends with laparoscopy and a cervical anastomosis, or as part of the Ivor- Lewis oesophagectomy where the oesophagogastric anastomosis resides in the chest. In this procedure the specimen is removed through a mini-thoracotomy, and the anastomosis is created at the apex of the chest (Bonavina et al. 2003).
Combinations of open and minimally invasive techniques are also an option, such as laparoscopy with thoracotomy (Briez et al. 2012) or thoracoscopy with laparotomy. These so-called hybrid techniques are applied for a variety of reasons, such as an oncological requirement, prior surgery in either cavity, surgeon experience, comfort level or surgeon preference.
Although the goal of MIO is to perform an equivalent operation to the open procedure without omitting any critical steps, some aspects considered as routine for open oesophagectomy have fallen out of favour, such as the performance of a pyloroplasty, jejunostomy placement or removal of the azygos vein.
3 Results
The primary goal of MIO is to decrease surgical morbidity associated with the open approach. No direct comparative trials have been published so far between open and MIO, but results for the TIME (Biere et al. 2011) and the MIRO (Briez et al. 2011) trials are urgently awaited. At present, the data shows that mortality rates and the incidence of complications reported are essentially equivalent for both techniques (Table 1.2). It is likely that any benefit of MIO is overshadowed by the persistent rate of complications independent of the approach, such as anastomotic leaks. It seems conceivable that, in the absence of such complications, patients with a minimal access approach enjoy quicker recovery, quicker return to normal activities and decreased long-term pain when compared to patients with similarly uncomplicated open procedures. This, however, has yet to be proven. MIO has been demonstrated as feasible for OC resection, but the oncologic value and safety is often questioned especially following neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The debate over the optimal surgical approach for OC, regardless of the technique, continues despite accumulating evidence in support of radical lymphadenectomy (Mariette and Piessen 2012). Few MIO series report lymph node retrieval and long-term results (Table 1.3).
Results coming from 3 meta-analyses published, based on non randomized comparative data, are contradictory. Two did not find significant differences between the MIO and the open approaches (Biere et al. 2009; Sgourakis et al. 2010). The third suggests that patients undergoing MIO had better operative and postoperative outcomes with no compromise in oncological outcomes (as assessed by lymph node retrieval) (Nagpal et al. 2010). Patients receiving MIO had significantly lower blood loss, and shorter postoperative ICU and hospital stay. There was a 50 % decrease in total morbidity in MIO group. Subgroup analysis of comorbidities demonstrated significantly lower incidence of respiratory complications after MIO; however, other postoperative outcomes such as anastomotic leak, anastomotic stricture, gastric conduit ischemia, chyle leak, vocal cord palsy, and 30 days mortality were comparable between the two techniques. The benefit of even one endoscopic stage in hybrid MIO (thoracoscopy with laparotomy or laparoscopy with thoracotomy) was noted, and blood loss and respiratory complications were still found to be lower, consistent with open versus totally MIO analysis, thus highlighting the advantage of applying a minimally invasive approach to oesophagectomy. It should be noted that few studies were matched for tumour stage, location or perioperative treatments. This fact could have introduced some bias, as for example patients with more advanced stages may have undergone open surgery.
From a technical and biological standpoint, the outcomes of open and MIO for cancer should be equivalent. Improved lighting and visibility, along with the magnification afforded by minimally invasive equipment, may prove superior for meticulous dissection and lymph node harvest. However, until large series report long-term survival by stage or results of large randomized trials are published, the true oncologic value of MIO will remain controversial.
4 MIO Learning Curve
As with all procedures, there are inherent technical challenges faced when applying a new technique. Oesophagectomy is a complex, technically challenging procedure fraught with potential pitfalls in nearly every step of the procedure. Many of the largest open series discuss the fact that morbidity and mortality decrease with experience (Hofstetter et al. 2002; Mariette et al. 2004). Technical complication rates have also been shown to negatively impact cancer specific survival (Rizk et al. 2004). As such, oesophagectomy has been designated an operation best left in the hands of experts at high-volume centers. Little is written regarding the learning for MIO directly, but is has been suggested that it may be more than 50 procedures (Bizekis et al. 2006; Decker et al. 2009). It appears that a hybrid procedure, especially using a laparoscopic and open thoracic approach may have a short learning curve and less oncological drawbacks (Briez et al. 2012).
Ideally, MIO should be performed by surgeons experienced in both advanced laparoscopy/thoracoscopy and surgical oncology for OC. Dedication to mastery of several MIO techniques allows the operation to be tailored to the individual patient using the less invasive approach matched to the pathology at hand. Certainly the extent of the oncologic resection should be based on the tumour, not the technique, and should be the primary goal.
5 Comments and Future
Open oesophagectomy remains the most effective treatment for OC with 5 year survival rates of approximatively 50 % being reported in several selected series, especially in combination with neoadjuvant chemoradiation (Bonavina et al. 2003; Mariette et al. 2008; Portale et al. 2006). This is a dramatic improvement, with survival rates several decades ago being consistently less than 20 %. Whereas endoscopic mucosal resection or radiofrequency ablation can cure OC that have not penetrated the muscularis mucosa, open oesophagectomy remains the gold standard treatment for the disease (Mariette et al. 2011). Improvements in chemoradiation protocols have been reported as effective adjuncts in surgical therapy (Mariette et al. 2007). Today, a multimodality approach to OC is common and preferred for tumours extending beyond the submucosa or with suspected lymph node involvement.
MIO has been gaining popularity since the first reports nearly two decades ago. Similar to open surgery, several techniques exist including totally laparoscopic transhiatal or transthoracic resection, as well as combinations, or hybrid techniques. Much as with open OC surgery, no consensus has been reached regarding the superiority of any particular MIO adaptation. Currently, no significant decrease in operative morbidity has been proven for MIO compared to its open counterpart, even if some large comparative studies suggest a significantly better postoperative course without compromising oncological outcomes (Briez et al. 2012; Osugi et al. 2003; Shiraishi et al. 2006; Smithers et al. 2007). Most reports of MIO for locally advanced cancers include a thoracic dissection. The role for MIO in these cancer stages is controversial but will become more defined as the procedures mature beyond their steep learning curves and long-term outcome data becomes available.
Randomized trials may be difficult due to the wide variety of techniques available, the heterogeneity in surgeons’ preferences, the relative low number of procedures performed, the complexity of such surgery, and the variety of postoperative complications after oesophagectomy. Even if no direct comparative trials have been published so far between open and MIO, results of two well-known randomized trials, the TIME (Biere et al. 2011) and the MIRO (Briez et al. 2011) trials are keenly awaited. The TIME trial aims at comparing over 120 patients, the approach to the MIO includes a right thoracosocpy and laparoscopy. The primary endpoint are postoperative respiratory complications within the first two postoperative weeks, whereas secondary endpoints are duration of the operation, blood loss, conversion to the open procedure, morbidity, quality of life and hospital stay. The MIRO trial will test, in over 200 patients randomised, the impact of laparoscopic gastric conduit creation with open thoracotomy (hybrid procedure) on major 30-day postoperative morbidity, especially on pulmonary complications. Secondary objectives are to assess the overall 30-day morbidity, 30-day mortality, disease-free and overall survival, quality of life and medico-economic analysis. It is hypothetized that hybrid MIO would decrease major postoperative morbidity without compromising oncological outcomes through an easily reproducible surgical procedure.
To conclude, there are many variations of MIO with combinations of thoracoscopic and laparoscopic approaches with and without open approaches to the abdomen or chest. Data coming from non randomized studies suggest MIO is safe, with similar outcomes to open resection for both the surgical and the oncological outcomes. Data from meta-analyses suggest that MIO may show improvement with less blood loss, less time in ICU, less pulmonary complications and shorter hospital stay. However, the effect of MIO on quality of life and return to normal activity has not been assessed. Medico-economic analyses are required. Results from two randomized trials (Biere et al. 2011; Briez et al. 2011) will soon be published to offer higher level evidence of this highly debated procedure.
References
Akaishi T, Kaneda I, Higuchi N, Kuriya Y, Kuramoto J, Toyoda T, Wakabayashi A (1996) Thoracoscopic en bloc total esophagectomy with radical mediastinal lymphadenectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 112:1533–1540 (discussion 1540–1541)
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 26:162–167
Bernabe KQ, Bolton JS, Richardson WS (2005) Laparoscopic hand-assisted versus open transhiatal esophagectomy: a case-control study. Surg Endosc 19:334–337
Biere SS, Cuesta MA, van der Peet DL (2009) Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Minerva Chir 64:121–133
Biere SS, Maas KW, Bonavina L, Garcia JR, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Rosman C, Sosef MN, de Lange ES, Bonjer HJ, Cuesta MA, van der Peet DL (2011) Traditional invasive vs. minimally invasive esophagectomy: a multi-center, randomized trial (TIME-trial). BMC Surg 11:2
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 82:402–406 (discussion 406–407)
Bonavina L, Via A, Incarbone R, Saino G, Peracchia A (2003) Results of surgical therapy in patients with Barrett’s adenocarcinoma. World J Surg 27:1062–1066
Braghetto I, Csendes A, Cardemil G, Burdiles P, Korn O, Valladares H (2006) Open transthoracic or transhiatal esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy in terms of morbidity, mortality and survival. Surg Endosc 20:1681–1686
Bresadola V, Terrosu G, Cojutti A, Benzoni E, Baracchini E, Bresadola F (2006) Laparoscopic versus open gastroplasty in esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a comparative study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 16:63–67
Briez N, Piessen G, Bonnetain F, Brigand C, Carrere N, Collet D, Doddoli C, Flamein R, Mabrut JY, Meunier B, Msika S, Perniceni T, Peschaud F, Prudhomme M, Triboulet JP, Mariette C (2011) Open versus laparoscopically-assisted oesophagectomy for cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled phase III trial—the MIRO trial. BMC Cancer 11:310
Briez N, Piessen G, Torres F, Lebuffe G, Triboulet JP, Mariette C (2012) Hybrid minimally invasive surgery in oesophageal cancer decreases major postoperative pulmonary complications without compromising oncological outcomes. Br J Surg (in press)
Butler N, Collins S, Memon B, Memon MA (2011) Minimally invasive oesophagectomy: current status and future direction. Surg Endosc 25:2071–2083
Dapri G, Himpens J, Cadiere GB (2008) Minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer: laparoscopic transhiatal procedure or thoracoscopy in prone position followed by laparoscopy? Surg Endosc 22:1060–1069
Decker G, Coosemans W, De Leyn P, Decaluwe H, Nafteux P, Van Raemdonck D, Lerut T (2009) Minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 35:13–20 (discussion 20–21)
Fabian T, Martin JT, McKelvey AA, Federico JA (2008) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: a teaching hospital’s first year experience. Dis Esophagus 21:220–225
Gemmill EH, McCulloch P (2007) Systematic review of minimally invasive resection for gastro-oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg 94:1461–1467
Gossot D, Fourquier P, Celerier M (1993) Thoracoscopic esophagectomy: technique and initial results. Ann Thorac Surg 56:667–670
Hofstetter W, Swisher SG, Correa AM, Hess K, Putnam JB Jr, Ajani JA, Dolormente M, Francisco R, Komaki RR, Lara A, Martin F, Rice DC, Sarabia AJ, Smythe WR, Vaporciyan AA, Walsh GL, Roth JA (2002) Treatment outcomes of resected esophageal cancer. Ann Surg 236:376–384 (discussion 384–385)
Jobe BA, Reavis KM, Davis JJ, Hunter JG (2004) Laparoscopic inversion esophagectomy: simplifying a daunting operation. Dis Esophagus 17:95–97
Kunisaki C, Hatori S, Imada T, Akiyama H, Ono H, Otsuka Y, Matsuda G, Nomura M, Shimada H (2004) Video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy with a voice-controlled robot: the AESOP system. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 14:323–327
Law S, Fok M, Chu KM, Wong J (1997) Thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Surgery 122:8–14
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 255:197–203
Mariette C, Piessen G (2012) Oesophageal cancer: how radical should surgery be? Eur J Surg Oncol 38:210–213
Mariette C, Piessen G, Briez N, Gronnier C, Triboulet JP (2011) Oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma: which therapeutic approach? Lancet Oncol 12:296–305
Mariette C, Piessen G, Briez N, Triboulet JP (2008) The number of metastatic lymph nodes and the ratio between metastatic and examined lymph nodes are independent prognostic factors in esophageal cancer regardless of neoadjuvant chemoradiation or lymphadenectomy extent. Ann Surg 247:365–371
Mariette C, Piessen G, Triboulet JP (2007) Therapeutic strategies in oesophageal carcinoma: role of surgery and other modalities. Lancet Oncol 8:545–553
Mariette C, Taillier G, Van Seuningen I, Triboulet JP (2004) Factors affecting postoperative course and survival after en bloc resection for esophageal carcinoma. Ann Thorac Surg 78:1177–1183
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 24:1621–1629
Nguyen NT, Follette DM, Wolfe BM, Schneider PD, Roberts P, Goodnight JE Jr (2000) Comparison of minimally invasive esophagectomy with transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy. Arch Surg 135:920–925
Osugi H, Takemura M, Higashino M, Takada N, Lee S, Kinoshita H (2003) A comparison of video-assisted thoracoscopic oesophagectomy and radical lymph node dissection for squamous cell cancer of the oesophagus with open operation. Br J Surg 90:108–113
Parameswaran R, Veeramootoo D, Krishnadas R, Cooper M, Berrisford R, Wajed S (2009) Comparative experience of open and minimally invasive esophagogastric resection. World J Surg 33:1868–1875
Perry KA, Enestvedt CK, Pham T, Welker M, Jobe BA, Hunter JG, Sheppard BC (2009) Comparison of laparoscopic inversion esophagectomy and open transhiatal esophagectomy for high-grade dysplasia and stage I esophageal adenocarcinoma. Arch Surg 144:679–684
Peyre CG, DeMeester SR, Rizzetto C, Bansal N, Tang AL, Ayazi S, Leers JM, Lipham JC, Hagen JA, DeMeester TR (2007) Vagal-sparing esophagectomy: the ideal operation for intramucosal adenocarcinoma and barrett with high-grade dysplasia. Ann Surg 246:665–671 (discussion 671–674 )
Pham TH, Perry KA, Dolan JP, Schipper P, Sukumar M, Sheppard BC, Hunter JG (2010) Comparison of perioperative outcomes after combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy and open Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. Am J Surg 199:594–598
Portale G, Hagen JA, Peters JH, Chan LS, DeMeester SR, Gandamihardja TA, DeMeester TR (2006) Modern 5-year survival of resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma: single institution experience with 263 patients. J Am Coll Surg 202:588–596 (discussion 596–598)
Rizk NP, Bach PB, Schrag D, Bains MS, Turnbull AD, Karpeh M, Brennan MF, Rusch VW (2004) The impact of complications on outcomes after resection for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 198:42–50
Schoppmann SF, Prager G, Langer FB, Riegler FM, Kabon B, Fleischmann E, Zacherl J (2010) Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: a single-center case controlled study. Surg Endosc 24:3044–3053
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 55:3031–30340
Shiraishi T, Kawahara K, Shirakusa T, Yamamoto S, Maekawa T (2006a) Risk analysis in resection of thoracic esophageal cancer in the era of endoscopic surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 81:1083–1089
Shiraishi T, Shirakusa T, Hiratsuka M, Yamamoto S, Iwasaki A (2006b) Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy for c-T1N0M0 primary lung cancer: its impact on locoregional control. Ann Thorac Surg 82:1021–1026
Singh RK, Pham TH, Diggs BS, Perkins S, Hunter JG (2011) Minimally invasive esophagectomy provides equivalent oncologic outcomes to open esophagectomy for locally advanced (stage II or III) esophageal carcinoma. Arch Surg 146:711–714
Smithers BM, Gotley DC, Martin I, Thomas JM (2007) Comparison of the outcomes between open and minimally invasive esophagectomy. Ann Surg 245:232–240
Swanstrom LL, Hansen P (1997) Laparoscopic total esophagectomy. Arch Surg 132:943–947 (discussion 947–949)
Van den Broek WT, Makay O, Berends FJ, Yuan JZ, Houdijk AP, Meijer S, Cuesta MA (2004) Laparoscopically assisted transhiatal resection for malignancies of the distal esophagus. Surg Endosc 18:812–817
Zingg U, McQuinn A, DiValentino D, Esterman AJ, Bessell JR, Thompson SK, Jamieson GG, Watson DI (2009) Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 87:911–919
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Mariette, C., Robb, W.B. (2012). Open or Minimally Invasive Resection for Oesophageal Cancer?. In: Otto, F., Lutz, M. (eds) Early Gastrointestinal Cancers. Recent Results in Cancer Research, vol 196. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31629-6_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31629-6_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-31628-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-31629-6
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)