Robot-Assisted Hybrid Esophagectomy Is Associated with a Shorter Length of Stay Compared to Conventional Transthoracic Esophagectomy:A Retrospective Study

Aim. To compare the peri- and postoperative data between a hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) and the conventional Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Methods. Retrospective comparison of perioperative characteristics, postoperative complications, and survival between HMIE and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Results. 216 patients were included, with 160 procedures performed with the conventional and 56 with the HMIE approach. Lower perioperative blood loss was found in the HMIE group (600 ml versus 200 ml, p<0.001). Also, a higher median number of lymph nodes were harvested in the HMIE group (median 28) than in the conventional group (median 23) (p=0.002). The median length of stay was longer in the conventional group compared to the HMIE group (11.5 days versus 10.0 days, p=0.03). Patients in the HMIE group experienced fewer grade 2 or higher complications than the conventional group (39% versus 57%, p=0.03). The rate of all pulmonary (51% versus 43%, p=0.32) and severe pulmonary complications (38% versus 18%, p = 0.23) was not statistically different between the groups. Conclusions. The HMIE was associated with lower intraoperative blood loss, a higher lymph node harvest, and a shorter hospital stay. However, the inborn limitations with the retrospective design stress a need for prospective randomized studies. Registration number is DRKS00013023

Preoperative CT versus diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the liver in patients with rectal cancer:a prospective randomized trial

Introduction. Colorectal cancer is one of the most frequent cancers in the world and liver metastases are seen in up to 19% of patients with colorectal cancers. Detection of liver metastases is not only vital for sufficient treatment and survival, but also for a better estimation of prognosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of diffusion weighted MRI of the liver as part of a combined MR evaluation of patients with rectal cancers and compare it with the standard preoperative evaluation of the liver with CT.Methods. Consecutive patients diagnosed with rectal cancers were asked to participate in the study. Preoperative CT and diffusion weighted MR (DWMR) were compared to contrast enhanced laparoscopic ultrasound (CELUS).Results. A total of 35 patients were included, 15 patients in Group-1 having the standard CT evaluation of the liver and 20 patients in Group-2 having the standard CT evaluation of the liver and DWMR of the liver. Compared with CELUS, the per-patient sensitivity/specificity was 50/100% for CT, and for DWMR: 100/94% and 100/100% for Reader 1 and 2, respectively. The per-lesion sensitivity of CT and DWMR were 17% and 89%, respectively compared with CELUS. Furthermore, one patient had non-resectable metastases after DWMR despite being diagnosed with resectable metastases after CT. Another patient was diagnosed with multiple liver metastases during CELUS, despite a negative CT-scan.Discussion. DWMR is feasible for preoperative evaluation of liver metastases. The current standard preoperative evaluation with CT-scan results in disadvantages like missed metastases and futile operations. We recommend that patients with rectal cancer, who are scheduled for MR of the rectum, should have a DWMR of the liver performed at the same time

Western European Variation in the Organization of Esophageal Cancer Surgical Care

Reasons for structural and outcome differences in esophageal cancer surgery in Western Europe remain unclear. This questionnaire study aimed to identify differences in the organization of esophageal cancer surgical care in Western Europe. A cross-sectional international questionnaire study was conducted among upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgeons from Western Europe. One surgeon per country was selected based on scientific output and active membership in the European Society for Diseases of the Esophagus or (inter)national upper GI committee. The questionnaire consisted of 51 structured questions on the structural organization of esophageal cancer surgery, surgical training, and clinical audit processes. Between October 2021 and October 2022, 16 surgeons from 16 European countries participated in this study. In 5 countries (31%), a volume threshold was present ranging from 10 to 26 annual esophagectomies, in 7 (44%) care was centralized in designated centers, and in 4 (25%) no centralizing regulations were present. The number of centers performing esophageal cancer surgery per country differed from 4 to 400, representing 0.5–4.9 centers per million inhabitants. In 4 countries (25%), esophageal cancer surgery was part of general surgical training and 8 (50%) reported the availability of upper GI surgery fellowships. A national audit for upper GI surgery was present in 8 (50%) countries. If available, all countries use the audit to monitor the quality of care. Substantial differences exist in the organization and centralization of esophageal cancer surgical care in Western Europe. The exchange of experience in the organizational aspects of care could further improve the results of esophageal cancer surgical care in Europe