Diseases of the Esophagus最新文献

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a significant complication following esophagectomy. AL affects 8%-17% of patients and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and hospital stay. To this date, no consensus exists on the most optimal treatment. This systematic review aimed to determine the most effective treatment approach. A systematic search of Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, and Embase databases was conducted. Only studies reporting on the treatment of intrathoracic anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction for cancer were included. Studies investigating other esophageal disorders or failing to report the location of the anastomosis were excluded. The methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Out of 12,966 identified studies, 38 were included for analysis after removing duplicates and screening titles, abstracts, and full texts. Of these, five were found to be of poor methodological quality and 33 were of moderate quality. The most researched treatment methods were Endoluminal vacuum therapy (EVT), naso-fistula tube drainage (NFTD), and stent treatment. The success and mortality rates for EVT were 82% and 10.7%, for NFTD, 94% and 5.2%, and, for stent treatment, 75.1% and 13.5%, respectively. AL can be effectively treated with EVT, stent treatment, and NFTD. The NFTD approach appeared to have a higher success rate and lower mortality than other treatment modalities. However, it requires a longer treatment duration. Due to limitations within the included studies, a definitive recommendation regarding the optimal treatment for AL cannot be made.

The association between body mass index (BMI) and cancers of the esophagus and the stomach remains complex and requires further exploration. This study aimed to investigate this association, including early-onset (< 50 years) cancer and cancer related mortality. A nationwide registry-based cohort study was performed by linking data from multiple national registries in Norway. The cohort included 1,723,692 individuals, with 22,473 gastroesophageal cancer cases identified over 55,701,169 person-years of follow-up. In men, a 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI was associated with an increased risk of esophageal (HR 1.34, 95%CI 1.22-1.48) and cardia adenocarcinoma (HR 1.36, 95% CI, 1.22-1.50). This finding extended to individuals with high BMI in early life (16-29 years) for esophageal adenocarcinoma. The highest risk per 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI was observed for early-onset esophageal (HR 2.49, 95%CI 1.23-5.02) and cardia adenocarcinoma (HR 2.26, 95%CI 1.19-4.27). Among women, increased BMI was associated with a higher risk of both esophageal (HR 1.28, 95%CI 1.13-1.44) and gastric adenocarcinoma (HR 1.04, 95%CI 1.01-1.07). Women with elevated BMI in early life also demonstrated increased risk for these cancers. In both sexes, a 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI was inversely associated with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. No association was observed between BMI and risk of cancer-related mortality. This study highlights an elevated risk of gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas with increasing BMI, with notable sex, age, and site-specific variations. The findings also point to a heightened risk of early-onset esophageal and cardia adenocarcinoma in men with high BMI.

In minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy, intrathoracic anastomoses are usually performed with stapling devices to avoid a technically challenging handsewn technique in the upper mediastinum. Few have published about handsewn anastomotic techniques due to the technically demanding requirements for suturing with rigid instruments in the thoracic cavity. With robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE), the robot provides increased dexterity, enabling construction of a hand-sewn intrathoracic anastomosis. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of our technique for hand-sewn intrathoracic anastomosis in RAMIE, following the initial learning phase between 2016 and 2018 in UMC Utrecht. Patients who underwent RAMIE with a robot-assisted hand-sewn intrathoracic anastomosis were included in this retrospective study. Data were extracted from a prospectively maintained institutional database. Key technique steps included esophageal stay-sutures, use of barbed sutures for the anastomosis, placement of tension-releasing stitches, and covering of the anastomosis with omentum. The primary outcome was anastomotic leakage; secondary outcomes included anastomotic stricture rate and duration of anastomosis construction. Between 1 November 2019 and 30 May 2023, 89 consecutive patients were included. Anastomotic leakage (defined by the Esophageal Complications Consensus Group) occurred in 11 patients (12.4%), which involved a grade I leak in four patients (4.5%), grade II leak in one patient (1.1%), and grade III leakage in six patients (6.7%). The median duration of anastomosis creation was 33 minutes (range, 23-55 minutes). Stricture rate was 32.6% (29 patients) at 1 year post-operatively for which dilation was needed for all patients. This study shows that a robot-assisted hand-sewn intrathoracic anastomosis in RAMIE is feasible, safe, and reliable.

Purpose: To compare the causes of death in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery.

Materials and methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients with stage T3-4aN0M0/T1-4aN1-3 M0 esophageal cancer who underwent either neoadjuvant chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. Overall survival (OS) and specific causes of death were analyzed and compared between the two treatment groups.

Results: A total of 4528 patients were included: 333 (7.4%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 4195 (92.6%) underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The 5-year OS was comparable between the two groups, both before (42.4% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98-1.33; P = 0.097) and after (42.2% vs. 42.2%; HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.86-1.31; P = 0.567) propensity score matching. The cumulative 5-year absolute risk of death from esophageal cancer (49.9% vs. 50.6%, P = 0.470), death from non-tumor causes (7.8% vs. 9.7%, P = 0.160), death due to lung causes (2.8% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.432), and death from heart-related causes (2.2% vs. 2.0%, P = 0.524) were similar between the two treatment groups.

Conclusion: In patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, OS and the causes of death were comparable between those receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and those undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols are evidence-based care improvement pathways which are perceived to expedite patient recovery following surgery. Their utility in the setting of oesophagectomy remains unclear. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the impact of ERAS protocols on recovery following oesophagectomy compared to standard care. A systematic review was performed in accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (Version 5.4). Six RCTs including 850 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Overall complication rate (Odds Ratio (OR): 0.35, Confidence Interval (CI): 0.21, 0.59, P < 0.0001), pulmonary complications (OR: 0.40, CI: 0.24, 0.67, P = 0.0005), post-operative length of stay (LOS) (OR -1.88, CI -2.05, -1.70, P < 0.00001) and time to post-operative flatus (OR: -5.20, CI: -9.46, -0.95, P = 0.02) favoured the ERAS group. There was no difference noted for anastomotic leak (OR: 0.55, CI: 0.24, 1.28, P = 0.17), cardiac complications (OR: 0.86, CI: 0.30, 2.46, P = 0.78), gastrointestinal complications (OR: 0.51, CI: 0.23, 1.17, P = 0.11), wound complications (OR: 0.85, CI: 0.28, 2.58, P = 0.78), mortality (OR: 1.37, CI: 0.26, 7.4, P = 0.71), and 30-day re-admission rate (OR: 1.29, CI: 0.30, 5.47, P = 0.73) between ERAS and standard care groups. ERAS implementation improved post-operative complications, LOS, and time to flatus following oesphagectomy. These results support the robust adoption of ERAS in patients indicated to undergo oesphagectomy.

Background: Malnutrition is common with esophagogastric cancers and is associated with negative outcomes. We aimed to evaluate if immunonutrition during neoadjuvant treatment improves patient's health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and reduces postoperative morbidity and toxicities during neoadjuvant treatment.

Methods: A multicenter double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) was undertaken. Included patients had untreated nonmetastatic esophagogastric tumor, aged 18 ≥ years with a life expectancy of >3 months. The study was powered for 80% power to detect a clinically relevant difference in EORTC-QLQC30 with standard deviation of 15 between groups. Primary end point was the quality of life as measured by the global health status at 30 days after surgery. An intention-to-treat analysis was employed.

Results: The study was terminated at the interim analysis stage. About 300 patients were randomized: 149 to the IMPACT group and 151 to the control-formula group. Patient groups were well-balanced in terms of age, sex, body mass index, WHO performance status, and clinical tumor stage. Analysis of the primary end point for the study of global health status at 30-day postoperatively failed to show any significant differences between the groups (55.4 ± 18.6 [IMPACT] vs. 55.9 ± 19.8 [control]; P = 0.345). No significant differences between the groups were detected in the majority of domains from EORTC QLQC30 and OG25 tools after neoadjuvant therapy and 30 days postoperatively. Finally, no significant differences were seen between groups in neoadjuvant therapy or postoperative complications, or tumor response.

Conclusion: The results of this multicenter double-blind RCT fail to demonstrate any HRQOL benefits to the utilization of immunonutrition during neoadjuvant therapy in patients with esophagogastric cancer.

Background: Minimally invasive hiatal hernia (HH) repair is the gold standard for correcting mechanical defects of the crural diaphragm due to its safety and favorable clinical outcomes (i.e., relief of patient symptoms). However, several operative factors, including HH size, may negatively affect the postoperative course. We sought to determine if an increase in HH size was associated with an increased risk of perioperative complications, ICU admission, or hospital readmissions after minimally invasive HH repair.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of patients who underwent primary HH repair by an experienced foregut surgeon between September 2016 and July 2023. Four groups were defined based on the percentage of stomach at the thorax determined during surgery (small-HH: <25%, moderate-HH: 25-49%, large-HH: 50-74%, and intrathoracic stomach [ITS]: ≥75%). Covariates were compared between the groups, and logistic regressions were performed to identify factors associated with postoperative morbidity.

Results: A total of 391 patients (73.7% female; mean age, 64.4 ± 12.5 years) comprised the groups: small-HH (n = 160), moderate-HH (n = 63), large-HH (n = 64), and ITS (n = 104). Patients with ITS were older (p < 0.001), had longer operations (p < 0.001), greater blood loss (p < 0.001), longer hospital stays (p < 0.001), and an increased risk of early postoperative complications (aOR 2.59 [CI95: 1.28-5.25], p = 0.009) and ICU admission (aOR 13.3 [CI95: 3.10-57.06], p < 0.001).

Conclusion: An increase in HH size was associated with an increased risk of early postoperative complications, ICU admission, and a trend toward higher 30- and 90-day hospital readmissions, likely due to the progressive nature of the disease.