Thirty years of esophageal cancer surgery in Oulu University Hospital

Abstract Background: Esophagectomy is the mainstay of surgical treatment of esophageal cancer, but involves high operative risk. The aim of this study was to review the evolution surgical treatment of esophageal cancer in Northern Finland, with introduction of minimally invasive techniques. Methods: All elective esophagectomies performed in Oulu University Hospital between years 1987 and 2020 were included. Treatment strategies were compared to current guidelines including staging and use of neoadjuvant therapy, and benchmark values including postoperative morbidity, hospital stay, readmissions and 90-day mortality. Long-term survival was compared to previous national studies. Results: Between years 1987 and 2020 a total of 341 underwent an esophagectomy. Transhiatal resection was performed to 167 (49.3%), Ivor Lewis to 129 (38.1%) and McKeown to 42 (12.4%) patients. MIE was performed to 49 (14.5%) patients. During the past four years 83.7% of locally advanced diseases received neoadjuvant treatment. Since 1987, gradual improvements have occurred especially in incidence of pleural effusion requiring additional drainage procedure (highest in 2011–2013 and in last four years 14.0%), recurrent nerve injuries (highest in 2008–2010 29.4% and lowest in 2017–2020 1.8%) and in 1-year survival rate (1987–1998 68.4% vs. 2017–2020 82.1%). No major changes in comorbidity, complication rate, anastomosis leaks, hospital stay or postoperative mortality were seen. Conclusions: Esophageal cancer surgery has gone through major changes over three decades. Current guideline-based treatment has resulted with progressive improvement in mid- and long-term survival. However, despite modern protocol, no major improvement has occurred for example in major complications, anastomosis leak rates or hospital stay

Minimally invasive esophagectomy learning curves with different types of background experience

Abstract Background: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is a complex procedure with learning associated morbidity. The aim was to evaluate the learning curve for MIE focusing on short-term outcomes in two settings: (I) experienced MIE surgeon in new hospital (Hospital 1); (II) surgeons experienced with open esophagectomy and minimally invasive surrogate surgery (Hospital 2). Methods: In Hospital 1 and Hospital 2, on intent-to-treat basis number of MIEs were 132 and 57, respectively. The primary outcomes were major complications and anastomosis leaks. Secondary outcomes were operative time, blood loss, lymph node yield, hospital stay and 1-year mortality. Length of learning curves were analyzed with risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) method. Results: In Hospital 1, major complication and anastomosis leak rates were 9.8% and 4.5%, 22.8% and 12.3% in Hospital 2, respectively. In Hospital 1, complication and leak rates remained stable. In Hospital 2, improvement occurred after 34 cases in major complications and 29 cases in leaks. Of secondary outcomes, improvements were seen in Hospital 1 in operative time after 61, blood loss after 86, lymph node yield after 52, hospital stay after 19 and 1-year mortality after 24 cases. In Hospital 2, improvement occurred in operative time after 30, blood loss after 15, lymph node yield after 45, hospital stay after 50 and 1-year mortality after 15 cases. Conclusions: According to this study, learning phase of the individual surgeon determines the outcomes of MIE, not the institutional learning phase