European consensus on essential steps of Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis and McKeown Esophagectomy through Delphi methodology

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is a complex and technically demanding procedure with a long learning curve, which is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. To master MIE, training in essential steps is crucial. Yet, no consensus on essential steps of MIE is available. The aim of this study was to achieve expert consensus on essential steps in Ivor Lewis and McKeown MIE through Delphi methodology. METHODS: Based on expert opinion and peer-reviewed literature, essential steps were defined for Ivor Lewis (IL) and McKeown (McK) MIE. In a round table discussion, experts finalized the lists of steps and an online Delphi questionnaire was sent to an international expert panel (7 European countries) of minimally invasive upper GI surgeons. Based on replies and comments, steps were adjusted and rephrased and sent in iterative fashion until consensus was achieved. RESULTS: Two Delphi rounds were conducted and response rates were 74% (23 out of 31 experts) for the first and 81% (27 out of 33 experts) for the second round. Consensus was achieved on 106 essential steps for both the IL and McK approach. Cronbach’s alpha in the first round was 0.78 (IL) and 0.78 (McK) and in the second round 0.92 (IL) and 0.88 (McK). CONCLUSIONS: Consensus among European experts was achieved on essential surgical steps for both Ivor Lewis and McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00464-021-08304-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Multicenter, Prospective, Longitudinal Study of the Recurrence, Surgical Site Infection, and Quality of Life After Contaminated Ventral Hernia Repair Using Biosynthetic Absorbable Mesh: The COBRA Study

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate biosynthetic absorbable mesh in single-staged contaminated (Centers for Disease Control class II and III) ventral hernia (CVH) repair over 24 months. BACKGROUND: CVH has an increased risk of postoperative infection. CVH repair with synthetic or biologic meshes has reported chronic biomaterial infections and high hernia recurrence rates. METHODS: Patients with a contaminated or clean-contaminated operative field and a hernia defect at least 9 cm had a biosynthetic mesh (open, sublay, retrorectus, or intraperitoneal) repair with fascial closure (n = 104). Endpoints included overall Kaplan-Meier estimates for hernia recurrence and postoperative wound infection rates at 24 months, and the EQ-5D and Short Form 12 Health Survey (SF-12). Analyses were conducted on the intent-to-treat population, and health outcome measures evaluated using paired t tests. RESULTS: Patients had a mean age of 58 years, body mass index of 28 kg/m, 77% had contaminated wounds, and 84% completed 24-months follow-up. Concomitant procedures included fistula takedown (n = 24) or removal of infected previously placed mesh (n = 29). Hernia recurrence rate was 17% (n = 16). At the time of CVH repair, intraperitoneal placement of the biosynthetic mesh significantly increased the risk of recurrences (P ≤ 0.04). Surgical site infections (19/104) led to higher risk of recurrence (P < 0.01). Mean 24-month EQ-5D (index and visual analogue) and SF-12 physical component and mental scores improved from baseline (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective longitudinal study, biosynthetic absorbable mesh showed efficacy in terms of long-term recurrence and quality of life for CVH repair patients and offers an alternative to biologic and permanent synthetic meshes in these complex situations

Severity of oEsophageal Anastomotic Leak in patients after oesophagectomy:the SEAL score

Background Anastomotic leak (AL) is a common but severe complication after oesophagectomy. It is unknown how to determine the severity of AL objectively at diagnosis. Determining leak severity may guide treatment decisions and improve future research. This study aimed to identify leak-related prognostic factors for mortality, and to develop a Severity of oEsophageal Anastomotic Leak (SEAL) score. Methods This international, retrospective cohort study in 71 centres worldwide included patients with AL after oesophagectomy between 2011 and 2019. The primary endpoint was 90-day mortality. Leak-related prognostic factors were identified after adjusting for confounders and were included in multivariable logistic regression to develop the SEAL score. Four classes of leak severity (mild, moderate, severe, and critical) were defined based on the risk of 90-day mortality, and the score was validated internally. Results Some 1509 patients with AL were included and the 90-day mortality rate was 11.7 per cent. Twelve leak-related prognostic factors were included in the SEAL score. The score showed good calibration and discrimination (c-index 0.77, 95 per cent c.i. 0.73 to 0.81). Higher classes of leak severity graded by the SEAL score were associated with a significant increase in duration of ICU stay, healing time, Comprehensive Complication Index score, and Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group classification. Conclusion The SEAL score grades leak severity into four classes by combining 12 leak-related predictors and can be used to the assess severity of AL after oesophagectomy.The Severity of oEsophageal Anastomotic Leak (SEAL) score was developed using data from the TENTACLE-Esophagus study, an international, multicentre retrospective cohort study including 1509 patients with anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy. The SEAL score was developed to determine anastomotic leak severity at diagnosis, and combines 12 leak-related parameters at diagnosis. The score may be useful in clinical practice and could improve future research.</p

Treatment of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer:large, collaborative, observational TENTACLE cohort study

Background: Anastomotic leak is a severe complication after oesophagectomy. Anastomotic leak has diverse clinical manifestations and the optimal treatment strategy is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of treatment strategies for different manifestations of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed in 71 centres worldwide and included patients with anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy (2011-2019). Different primary treatment strategies were compared for three different anastomotic leak manifestations: interventional versus supportive-only treatment for local manifestations (that is no intrathoracic collections; well perfused conduit); drainage and defect closure versus drainage only for intrathoracic manifestations; and oesophageal diversion versus continuity-preserving treatment for conduit ischaemia/necrosis. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounders. Results: Of 1508 patients with anastomotic leak, 28.2 per cent (425 patients) had local manifestations, 36.3 per cent (548 patients) had intrathoracic manifestations, 9.6 per cent (145 patients) had conduit ischaemia/necrosis, 17.5 per cent (264 patients) were allocated after multiple imputation, and 8.4 per cent (126 patients) were excluded. After propensity score matching, no statistically significant differences in 90-day mortality were found regarding interventional versus supportive-only treatment for local manifestations (risk difference 3.2 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -1.8 to 8.2 per cent), drainage and defect closure versus drainage only for intrathoracic manifestations (risk difference 5.8 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -1.2 to 12.8 per cent), and oesophageal diversion versus continuity-preserving treatment for conduit ischaemia/necrosis (risk difference 0.1 per cent, 95 per cent c.i. -21.4 to 1.6 per cent). In general, less morbidity was found after less extensive primary treatment strategies. Conclusion: Less extensive primary treatment of anastomotic leak was associated with less morbidity. A less extensive primary treatment approach may potentially be considered for anastomotic leak. Future studies are needed to confirm current findings and guide optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after oesophagectomy.</p

Stoma-free survival after anastomotic leak following rectal cancer resection: worldwide cohort of 2470 patients

Background: the optimal treatment of anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection is unclear. this worldwide cohort study aimed to provide an overview of four treatment strategies applied. Methods: Patients from 216 centres and 45 countries with anastomotic leak after rectal cancer resection between 2014 and 2018 were included. treatment was categorized as salvage surgery, faecal diversion with passive or active (vacuum) drainage, and no primary/secondary faecal diversion. The primary outcome was 1-year stoma-free survival. In addition, passive and active drainage were compared using propensity score matching (2 : 1). results: Of 2470 evaluable patients, 388 (16.0 per cent) underwent salvage surgery, 1524 (62.0 per cent) passive drainage, 278 (11.0 per cent) active drainage, and 280 (11.0 per cent) had no faecal diversion. one-year stoma-free survival rates were 13.7, 48.3, 48.2, and 65.4 per cent respectively. propensity score matching resulted in 556 patients with passive and 278 with active drainage. there was no statistically significant difference between these groups in 1-year stoma-free survival (OR 0.95, 95 per cent c.i. 0.66 to 1.33), with a risk difference of -1.1 (95 per cent c.i. -9.0 to 7.0) per cent. after active drainage, more patients required secondary salvage surgery (OR 2.32, 1.49 to 3.59), prolonged hospital admission (an additional 6 (95 per cent c.i. 2 to 10) days), and ICU admission (OR 1.41, 1.02 to 1.94). Mean duration of leak healing did not differ significantly (an additional 12 (-28 to 52) days). Conclusion: Primary salvage surgery or omission of faecal diversion likely correspond to the most severe and least severe leaks respectively. In patients with diverted leaks, stoma-free survival did not differ statistically between passive and active drainage, although the increased risk of secondary salvage surgery and ICU admission suggests residual confounding

A Population-based Study on Lymph Node Retrieval in Patients with Esophageal Cancer: Results from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit

Background: For esophageal cancer, the number of retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) is often used as a quality indicator. The aim of this study is to analyze the number of retrieved LNs in The Netherlands, assess factors associated with LN yield, and explore the association with short-term outcomes. This is a population-based study on lymph node retrieval in patients with esophageal cancer, presenting results from the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit. Study Design: For this retrospective national cohort study, patients with esophageal carcinoma who underwent esophagectomy between 2011 and 2016 were included. The primary outcome was the number of retrieved LNs. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were used to test for association with ≥ 15 LNs. Patients and Results: 3970 patients were included. Between 2011 and 2016, the median number of LNs increased from 15 to 20. Factors independently associated with ≥ 15 LNs were: 0–10 kg preoperative weight loss (versus: unknown weight loss, odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.71 [0.57–0.88]), Charlson score 0 (versus: Charlson score 2: 0.76 [0.63–0.92]), cN2 category (reference: cN0, 1.32 [1.05–1.65]), no neoadjuvant therapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (reference: neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, 1.73 [1.29–2.32] and 2.15 [1.54–3.01]), minimally invasive transthoracic (reference: open transthoracic, 1.46 [1.15–1.85]), open transthoracic (versus open and minimally invasive transhiatal, 0.29 [0.23–0.36] and 0.43 [0.32–0.59]), hospital volume of 26–50 or > 50 resections/year (reference: 0–25, 1.94 [1.55–2.42] and 3.01 [2.36–3.83]), and year of surgery [reference: 2011, odds ratios (ORs) 1.48, 1.53, 2.28, 2.44, 2.54]. There was no association of ≥ 15 LNs with short-term outcomes. Conclusions: The number of LNs retrieved increased between 2011 and 2016. Weight loss, Charlson score, cN category, neoadjuvant therapy, surgical approach, year of resection, and hospital volume were all associated with increased LN yield. Retrieval of ≥ 15 LNs was not associated with increased postoperative morbidity/mortality

Stoma-free Survival After Rectal Cancer Resection With Anastomotic Leakage: Development and Validation of a Prediction Model in a Large International Cohort

Objective: This study aimed to develop and validate a prediction model (STOMA-score) for one-year stoma-free survival in rectal cancer (RC) patients with anastomotic leakage (AL). Background: AL after RC resection often results in a permanent stoma. Methods: This international retrospective cohort study (TENTACLE-Rectum) encompassed 216 participating centres, and included patients who developed AL after RC surgery between 2014-2018. Clinically relevant predictors for one-year stoma-free survival were included in uni- and multivariable logistic regression models. The STOMA-score was developed and internally validated in a cohort of patients operated between 2014-2017, with subsequent temporal validation in a 2018 cohort. The discriminative power and calibration of the models' performance were evaluated. Results: This study included 2499 AL patients; 1954 in the development cohort and 545 in the validation cohort. Baseline characteristics were comparable. One-year stoma-free survival was 45.0% in the development cohort and 43.7% in the validation cohort. The following predictors were included in the STOMA-score: sex, age, ASA-classification, body mass index, clinical M-disease, neoadjuvant therapy, abdominal- and transanal approach, primary defunctioning stoma, multivisceral resection, clinical setting in which AL was diagnosed, postoperative day of AL diagnosis, abdominal contamination, anastomotic defect circumference, bowel wall ischemia, anastomotic fistula, retraction and reactivation leakage. The STOMA-score showed good discrimination and calibration (c-index 0.71, 95%CI 0.66-0.76). Conclusion: The STOMA-score consists of eighteen clinically relevant factors and estimates the individual risk for one-year stoma-free survival in patients with AL after RC surgery, which may improve patient counselling and give guidance when analyzing efficacy of different treatment strategies in future studies