Short-term outcome of Ivor Lewis esophagectomy following neoadjuvant chemoradiation versus perioperative chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction: a propensity score-matched analysis

Background!#!Patients with locally advanced esophageal or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma benefit from multimodal therapy concepts including neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT), respectively, perioperative chemotherapy (pCT). However, it remains unclear which treatment is superior concerning postoperative morbidity.!##!Methods!#!In this study, we compared the postsurgical survival (30-day/90-day/1-year mortality) (primary endpoint), treatment response, and surgical complications (secondary endpoints) of patients who either received nCRT (CROSS protocol) or pCT (FLOT protocol) due to esophageal/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Between January 2013 and December 2017, 873 patients underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in our high-volume center. 339 patients received nCRT and 97 underwent pCT. After 1:1 propensity score matching (matching criteria: sex, age, BMI, ASA score, and Charlson score), 97 patients per subgroup were included for analysis.!##!Results!#!After matching, tumor response (ypT/ypN) did not differ significantly between nCRT and pCT (p = 0.118, respectively, p = 0.174). Residual nodal metastasis occurred more often after pCT (p = 0.001). Postsurgical mortality was comparable within both groups. No patient died within 30 or 90 days after surgery while the 1-year survival rate was 72.2% for nCRT and 68.0% for pCT (p = 0.47). Only grade 3a complications according to Clavien-Dindo were increased after pCT (p = 0.04). There was a trend towards a higher rate of pylorospasm within the pCT group (nCRT: 23.7% versus pCT: 37.1%) (p = 0.061). Multivariate analysis identified pCT, younger age, and Charlson score as independent variables for pylorospasm.!##!Conclusion!#!Both nCRT and pCT are safe and efficient within the multimodal treatment of esophageal/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. We did not observe differences in postoperative morbidity. However, functional aspects such as gastric emptying might be more frequent after pCT

Management of paraesophageal hiatus hernia: recommendations following a European expert Delphi consensus

Aims: There is considerable controversy regarding optimal management of patients with paraesophageal hiatus hernia (pHH). This survey aims at identifying recommended strategies for work-up, surgical therapy, and postoperative follow-up using Delphi methodology. Methods: We conducted a 2-round, 33-question, web-based Delphi survey on perioperative management (preoperative work-up, surgical procedure and follow-up) of non-revisional, elective pHH among European surgeons with expertise in upper-GI. Responses were graded on a 5-point Likert scale and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Items from the questionnaire were defined as “recommended” or “discouraged” if positive or negative concordance among participants was > 75%. Items with lower concordance levels were labelled “acceptable” (neither recommended nor discouraged). Results: Seventy-two surgeons with a median (IQR) experience of 23 (14–30) years from 17 European countries participated (response rate 60%). The annual median (IQR) individual and institutional caseload was 25 (15–36) and 40 (28–60) pHH-surgeries, respectively. After Delphi round 2, “recommended” strategies were defined for preoperative work-up (endoscopy), indication for surgery (typical symptoms and/or chronic anemia), surgical dissection (hernia sac dissection and resection, preservation of the vagal nerves, crural fascia and pleura, resection of retrocardial lipoma) and reconstruction (posterior crurorrhaphy with single stitches, lower esophageal sphincter augmentation (Nissen or Toupet), and postoperative follow-up (contrast radiography). In addition, we identified “discouraged” strategies for preoperative work-up (endosonography), and surgical reconstruction (crurorrhaphy with running sutures, tension-free hiatus repair with mesh only). In contrast, many items from the questionnaire including most details of mesh augmentation (indication, material, shape, placement, and fixation technique) were “acceptable”. Conclusions: This multinational European Delphi survey represents the first expert-led process to identify recommended strategies for the management of pHH. Our work may be useful in clinical practice to guide the diagnostic process, increase procedural consistency and standardization, and to foster collaborative research