Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Comparing Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Versus Minimally Invasive Mckeown Esophagectomy

被引:69
作者
van Workum, Frans [1 ]
Slaman, Annelijn E. [2 ,3 ]
Henegouwen, Mark I. van Berge [2 ,3 ]
Gisbertz, Suzanne S. [2 ,3 ]
Kouwenhoven, Ewout A. [4 ]
van Det, Marc J. [4 ]
van den Wildenberg, Frits J. H. [5 ]
Polat, Fatih [5 ]
Luyer, Misha D. P. [6 ]
Nieuwenhuijzen, Grard A. P. [6 ]
Rosman, Camiel [1 ]
机构
[1] Radboudumc, Dept Surg, POB 9101, NL-6500 HB Nijmegen, Netherlands
[2] Univ Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Dept Surg, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[3] Univ Amsterdam, Amsterdam Canc Ctr, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[4] ZGT Hosp, Dept Surg, Almelo, Netherlands
[5] Canisius Wilhelmina Hosp, Dept Surg, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[6] Catharina Hosp, Dept Surg, Eindhoven, Netherlands
关键词
cervical anastomosis; intrathoracic anastomosis; Ivor Lewis esophagectomy; McKeown esophagectomy; minimally invasive esophagectomy; transthoracic esophagectomy; PROFICIENCY-GAIN; CANCER; COMPLICATIONS; ESOPHAGUS; SURVIVAL; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1097/SLA.0000000000002982
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Introduction: Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) is increasingly used in treatment of patients with esophageal carcinoma. However, it is currently unknown if McKeown TMIE or Ivor Lewis TMIE should be preferred for patients in whom both procedures are oncologically feasible. Methods: The study was performed in 4 high-volume Dutch esophageal cancer centers between November 2009 and April 2017. Prospectively collected data from consecutive patients with esophageal cancer localized in the distal esophagus or gastroesophageal junction undergoing McKeown TMIE or Ivor Lewis TMIE were included. Patients were propensity score matched for age, body mass index, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, Charlson Comorbidity Index, tumor type, tumor location, clinical stage, neoadjuvant treatment, and the hospital of surgery. The primary outcome parameter was anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperation. Secondary outcome parameters were operation characteristics, pathology results, complications, reinterventions, reoperations, length of stay, and mortality. Results: Of all 787 included patients, 420 remained after matching. The incidence of anastomotic leakage requiring reintervention or reoperation was 23.3% after McKeown TMIE versus 12.4% after Ivor Lewis TMIE (P = 0.003). Ivor Lewis TMIE was significantly associated with a lower incidence of pulmonary complications (46.7% vs 31.9%), recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (9.5% vs 0.5%), reoperations (18.6% vs 11.0%), 90-day mortality (7.1% vs 2.9%), shorter median intensive care unit length of stay (2 days vs 1 day) and shorter median hospital length of stay (12 vs 11 days) (all P < 0.05). R0 resection rate was similar between the groups. The median number of examined lymph nodes was 21 after McKeown TMIE and 25 after Ivor Lewis TMIE (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Ivor Lewis TMIE is associated with a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage, 90-day mortality and other postoperative morbidity compared to McKeown TMIE in patients in whom both procedures are oncologically feasible.
引用
收藏
页码:128 / 133
页数:6
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], ANN SURG
[2]   Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples [J].
Austin, Peter C. .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2009, 28 (25) :3083-3107
[3]   Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial [J].
Biere, Surya S. A. Y. ;
Henegouwen, Mark I. van Berge ;
Maas, Kirsten W. ;
Bonavina, Luigi ;
Rosman, Camiel ;
Roig Garcia, Josep ;
Gisbertz, Suzanne S. ;
Klinkenbijl, Jean H. G. ;
Hollmann, Markus W. ;
de lange, Elly S. M. ;
Bonjer, H. Jaap ;
van der Peet, Donald L. ;
Cuesta, Miguel A. .
LANCET, 2012, 379 (9829) :1887-1892
[4]   Textbook outcome as a composite measure in oesophagogastric cancer surgery [J].
Busweiler, L. A. D. ;
Schouwenburg, M. G. ;
Henegouwen, M. I. van Berge ;
Kolfschoten, N. E. ;
de Jong, P. C. ;
Rozema, T. ;
Wijnhoven, B. P. L. ;
van Hillegersberg, R. ;
Wouters, M. W. J. M. ;
van Sandick, J. W. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2017, 104 (06) :742-750
[5]   Terminalized semimechanical side-to-side suture technique for cervical esophagogastrostomy [J].
Collard, JM ;
Romagnoli, R ;
Goncette, L ;
Otte, JB ;
Kestens, PJ .
ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 1998, 65 (03) :814-817
[6]   Does Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (MIE) Provide for Comparable Oncologic Outcomes to Open Techniques? A Systematic Review [J].
Dantoc, Marc M. ;
Cox, Michael R. ;
Eslick, Guy D. .
JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY, 2012, 16 (03) :486-494
[7]   Classification of surgical complications - A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey [J].
Dindo, D ;
Demartines, N ;
Clavien, PA .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2004, 240 (02) :205-213
[8]   Worldwide trends in surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer [J].
Haverkamp, L. ;
Seesing, M. F. J. ;
Ruurda, J. P. ;
Boone, J. ;
Hillegersberg, R. v. .
DISEASES OF THE ESOPHAGUS, 2017, 30 (01) :1-7
[10]   International Consensus on Standardization of Data Collection for Complications Associated With Esophagectomy Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) [J].
Low, Donald E. ;
Alderson, Derek ;
Cecconello, Ivan ;
Chang, Andrew C. ;
Darling, Gail E. ;
D'Journo, Xavier Benoit ;
Griffin, S. Michael ;
Hoelscher, Arnulf H. ;
Hofstetter, Wayne L. ;
Jobe, Blair A. ;
Kitagawa, Yuko ;
Kucharczuk, John C. ;
Law, Simon Ying Kit ;
Lerut, Toni E. ;
Maynard, Nick ;
Pera, Manuel ;
Peters, Jeffrey H. ;
Pramesh, C. S. ;
Reynolds, John V. ;
Smithers, B. Mark ;
van Lanschot, J. Jan B. .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2015, 262 (02) :286-294