Lymph Node Harvest During Esophagectomy Is Not Influenced by Use of Neoadjuvant Therapy or Clinical Disease Stage.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of neoadjuvant therapy on lymph node harvest (LNH), lymph node ratio (LNR), and overall survival rates after esophagectomy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 111 patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma from 2001 to 2010 was performed. Patients were divided into two groups: neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy prior to surgery (NEOSURG) versus surgery alone (SURG). RESULTS: There were 83 patients (75%) in the NEOSURG group and 28 (25%) in the SURG group with a mean age of 66 and 67 years, respectively. The median LNH in the NEOSURG group and SURG group was 16.0 and 15.5, respectively (p = 0.57). Within the NEOSURG group, the median LNH was 16 for complete responders, 14 for partial responders, 16 for nonresponders, and 18 in those who were pathologically upstaged (p = 0.434). The median LNR was 0, 0, 0.1, and 0.2, respectively (p < 0.001). Complete response after neoadjuvant therapy demonstrated a trend toward improved survival (p = 0.056). CONCLUSION: The LNH was not significantly influenced by neoadjuvant treatment or pathologic response. The LNR was inversely related to pathologic response after neoadjuvant therapy. Complete pathologic response to neoadjuvant therapy trends to improve survival rates.

The incidence of hiatal hernia after minimally invasive esophagectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has evolved as a means to minimize the morbidity of an operation which is traditionally associated with a significant risk. However, this approach may have its own unique postoperative complications. In this study, we describe the incidence and outcomes of hiatal hernia in a cohort of MIE patients. METHODS: Clinical follow-up data on 114 patients who had undergone minimally invasive esophagectomy between 2003 and 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical presentation and computed tomography (CT) scans of the chest and abdomen were used to establish the diagnosis of hiatal herniation after minimally invasive esophagectomy. Age, gender, presenting complaint, comorbid conditions, clinical tumor stage, surgical specimen size, length and cost of hospital admissions, operation performed for hiatal herniation, and mortality were all recorded for analysis. RESULTS: Nine (8%) of the 114 patients who underwent MIE had postoperative hiatal herniation. Five of these patients were asymptomatic. All patients except two who presented emergently were repaired laparoscopically on an elective basis. The average length of stay after hiatal hernia repair was 5.5 days (range 2-12) at an average charge of $40,785 (range $25,264-$83,953). At follow-up, one patient complained of symptoms associated with reflux. CONCLUSION: Hiatal herniation is not a rare event after MIE. It is also associated with significant health-care cost and may be lethal. Most occurrences appear to be asymptomatic and, if detected, can be repaired with good resolution of symptoms, minimal associated morbidity, and no mortality.

Impact of comorbidity on outcomes and overall survival after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of the Charlson Comorbidity Index-Grade (CCI-G) on predicting outcomes and overall survival after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). METHODS: One hundred and forty-six patients who underwent esophagectomy between 1995 and 2011 for stage II and III cancer were selected and separated into open esophagectomy (Open) and MIE groups. Risk adjustment was performed using the CCI-G. The outcomes of interest were operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), lymph node harvest, length of hospital stay (LOS), major complications, 30-day mortality, and overall survival. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients (44 %) underwent Open while 71 (49 %) had MIE. An additional (7 %) were converted and classified with MIE. There was no significant difference between MIE and Open in terms of operative time. MIE had less EBL (mean difference = 234 mL, p < 0.001), higher lymph node harvest (mean = 7.4 nodes, p < 0.001), and shorter LOS (median = 1.5 days, p = 0.02). Atrial arrhythmias were the most frequent complication, occurring in 33 % of patients in both the MIE and the Open group (p = 0.988). Thirty-day mortality was 2 % for MIE and 5 % for Open (p = 0.459). Five-year survival was 41 % for MIE and 33 % for Open (p = 0.513). Operative approach, age, gender, BMI, clinical stage, and neoadjuvant therapy did not have any significant effect on the outcomes or overall survival. CCI-G influenced outcomes with operative time, LOS, cardiovascular complication, and anastomotic leak rate, favoring CCI-G 0 compared to CCI-G 3. Overall survival was worse for CCI-G 1 in comparison with CCI-G 0 [hazard ratio (HR) 1.99, p = 0.027]. CONCLUSIONS: MIE is a safe alternative to open esophagectomy for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer. The presence of comorbidities increased operative time, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications while worsening overall survival.

A prospective, randomized comparison of pain, inflammatory response, and short-term outcomes between single port and laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the postoperative inflammatory response and severity of pain between single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) cholecystectomy and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). METHODS: Two groups of 20 patients were prospectively randomized to either conventional LC or SILS cholecystectomy. Serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels were assayed before surgery, at 4-6 h, and at 18-24 h after the procedure. Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) levels also were assayed at 18-24 h after surgery. Pain was measured at each of three time points after surgery using the visual analogue scale (VAS). The number of analgesia doses administered in the first 24 h after the procedure also was recorded and 30-day surgical outcomes were documented. RESULTS: The groups had equivalent body mass index (BMI), age, and comorbidity distribution. Peak IL-6 levels occurred 4-6 h after surgery, and the median level was 12.8 pg/ml in the LC and 8.9 pg/ml in the SILS group (p = 0.5). The median CRP level before discharge was 1.6 mg/dl in the LC and 1.9 mg/dl in the SILS group (p = 0.38). There was no difference in either analgesic use or pain intensity as measured by the VAS between the two groups (p = 0.72). The length of the surgical procedure was significantly longer in the SILS group (p < 0.001). No intraoperative complications occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Single-incision laparoscopic surgery does not significantly reduce systemic inflammatory response, postoperative pain, or analgesic use compared with LC.

High-grade dysplasia and intramucosal adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus: the role of esophagectomy in the era of endoscopic eradication therapy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to evaluate the role of esophagectomy for high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and intramucosal adenocarcinoma (IMC) in light of recent advances in endoscopic therapy for Barrett's esophagus. RECENT FINDINGS: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are proven well tolerated and effective, at least in midterm follow-up. The application of these techniques has opened a new road for the local treatment of esophageal HGD and IMC. To safely employ these techniques, reliable and accurate staging of the esophageal neoplasm is essential. EMR has taken a central role, as it allows the pathologist to provide tumor-staging information necessary for an appropriate clinical management decision process. Unfortunately, both RFA and EMR have limitations that preclude their universal use in the treatment of early esophageal cancer. In some cases, esophagectomy still remains the best treatment option. The evolution of the minimally invasive approach to esophagectomy may improve outcomes of this major operation. SUMMARY: A better understanding of the indications and limitations of endoscopic therapy for HGD and IMC permits a tailored approach to the management of patients with early esophageal adenocarcinoma. When indicated, the selection of a less morbid surgical technique has the potential to improve overall surgical and oncological outcomes.

Tailoring esophageal cancer surgery.

Esophageal cancer is a significant source of major mortality worldwide and is increasing dramatically in incidence. Without treatment this disease leads rapidly to death, but intervention also carries significant risk, so a carefully tailored approach must be used to maximize oncological efficacy while minimizing the negative consequences of intervention. Careful patient selection based on histologic and anatomic staging, consideration of each patient's clinical variables, appropriately timing chemo- and radiation therapy, and minimizing the morbidity of surgical intervention may significantly improve a patient's chances of surviving this disease, but each must be carefully orchestrated with a tailored approach to treatment. This review will serve as a guide to tailoring surgery for esophageal cancer.

Barrett's esophagus: a review of the literature.

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the premalignant lesion of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) defined as specialized intestinal metaplasia of the tubular esophagus that results from chronic gastroesophageal reflux. Which patients are at risk of having BE and which are at further risk of developing EAC has yet to be fully established. Many aspects of the management of BE have changed considerably in the past 5 years alone. The aim of this review is to define the critical elements necessary to effectively manage individuals with BE. The general prevalence of BE is estimated at 1.6-3% and follows a demographic distribution similar to EAC. Both short-segment (<3 cm) and long-segment (≥3 cm) BE confer a significant risk for EAC that is increased by the development of dysplasia. The treatment for flat high-grade dysplasia is endoscopic radiofrequency ablation therapy. The benefits of ablation for non-dysplastic BE and BE with low-grade dysplasia have yet to be validated. By understanding the intricacies of the development, screening, surveillance, and treatment of BE, new insights will be gained into the prevention and early detection of EAC that may ultimately lead to a reduction in morbidity and mortality in this patient population.