Abstract Background The complexity of oesophageal surgery and the significant risk of morbidity necessitates that oesophagectomy is predominantly performed by a consultant surgeon, or a senior trainee under their supervision. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of trainee involvement in oesophagectomy on postoperative outcomes in an international multicentre setting. Methods Data from the multicentre Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Study Group (OGAA) cohort study were analysed, which comprised prospectively collected data from patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April 2018 and December 2018. Procedures were grouped by the level of trainee involvement, and univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to compare patient outcomes across groups. Results Of 2232 oesophagectomies from 137 centres in 41 countries, trainees were involved in 29.1 per cent of them (n = 650), performing only the abdominal phase in 230, only the chest and/or neck phases in 130, and all phases in 315 procedures. For procedures with a chest anastomosis, those with trainee involvement had similar 90-day mortality, complication and reoperation rates to consultant-performed oesophagectomies (P = 0.451, P = 0.318, and P = 0.382, respectively), while anastomotic leak rates were significantly lower in the trainee groups (P = 0.030). Procedures with a neck anastomosis had equivalent complication, anastomotic leak, and reoperation rates (P = 0.150, P = 0.430, and P = 0.632, respectively) in trainee-involved versus consultant-performed oesophagectomies, with significantly lower 90-day mortality in the trainee groups (P = 0.005). Conclusion Trainee involvement was not found to be associated with significantly inferior postoperative outcomes for selected patients undergoing oesophagectomy. The results support continued supervised trainee involvement in oesophageal cancer surgery.
The Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) have set standards in reporting outcomes after oesophagectomy. Reporting outcomes from selected high-volume centres or centralized national cancer programmes may not, however, be reflective of the true global prevalence of complications. This study aimed to compare complication rates after oesophagectomy from these existing sources with those of an unselected international cohort from the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA).The OGAA was a prospective multicentre cohort study coordinated by the West Midlands Research Collaborative, and included patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April and December 2018, with 90 days of follow-up.The OGAA study included 2247 oesophagectomies across 137 hospitals in 41 countries. Comparisons with the ECCG and DUCA found differences in baseline demographics between the three cohorts, including age, ASA grade, and rates of chronic pulmonary disease. The OGAA had the lowest rates of neoadjuvant treatment (OGAA 75.1 per cent, ECCG 78.9 per cent, DUCA 93.5 per cent; P < 0.001). DUCA exhibited the highest rates of minimally invasive surgery (OGAA 57.2 per cent, ECCG 47.9 per cent, DUCA 85.8 per cent; P < 0.001). Overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts (OGAA 63.6 per cent, ECCG 59.0 per cent, DUCA 62.2 per cent), with no statistically significant difference in Clavien-Dindo grades (P = 0.752). However, a significant difference in 30-day mortality was observed, with DUCA reporting the lowest rate (OGAA 3.2 per cent, ECCG 2.4 per cent, DUCA 1.7 per cent; P = 0.013).Despite differences in rates of co-morbidities, oncological treatment strategies, and access to minimal-access surgery, overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts.
Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has become a mainstream procedure in the management of obesity. Staple line leak is a challenging complication. We report a unique case of successfully treated leak after sleeve gastrectomy, presented ex novo 4 years later as a gastro-cutaneous fistula (GCF). Nothing similar was found in the literature. A 31-year-old woman underwent an LSG, complicated by an early type I leak treated successfully. After 4 years of clinical remission, the leak presented as a GCF. The conservative approach failed and a laparoscopic fistulectomy was first attempted, but after recurrence a completion gastrectomy was performed. A staple line leak is one of the most important complications after sleeve gastrectomy. Once chronic it evolves into GCF, the treatment of which is challenging. Given the absence of guidelines, experience is fundamental in its management. In our case, eventually a total gastrectomy was required.
Abstract Background Large studies comparing totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIE) with laparoscopically assisted (hybrid) oesophagectomy are lacking. Although randomized trials have compared TMIE invasive with open oesophagectomy, daily clinical practice does not always resemble the results reported in such trials. The aim of the present study was to compare complications after totally minimally invasive, hybrid and open Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy in patients with oesophageal cancer. Methods The study was performed using data from the International Esodata Study Group registered between February 2015 and December 2019. The primary outcome was pneumonia, and secondary outcomes included the incidence and severity of anastomotic leakage, (major) complications, duration of hospital stay, escalation of care, and 90-day mortality. Data were analysed using multivariable multilevel models. Results Some 8640 patients were included between 2015 and 2019. Patients undergoing TMIE had a lower incidence of pneumonia than those having hybrid (10.9 versus 16.3 per cent; odds ratio (OR) 0.56, 95 per cent c.i. 0.40 to 0.80) or open (10.9 versus 17.4 per cent; OR 0.60, 0.42 to 0.84) oesophagectomy, and had a shorter hospital stay (median 10 (i.q.r. 8–16) days versus 14 (11–19) days (P = 0.041) and 11 (9–16) days (P = 0.027) respectively). The rate of anastomotic leakage was higher after TMIE than hybrid (15.1 versus 10.7 per cent; OR 1.47, 1.01 to 2.13) or open (15.1 versus 7.3 per cent; OR 1.73, 1.26 to 2.38) procedures. Conclusion Compared with hybrid and open Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy, TMIE resulted in a lower pneumonia rate, a shorter duration of hospital stay, but higher anastomotic leakage rates. Therefore, no clear advantage was seen for either TMIE, hybrid or open Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy when performed in daily clinical practice.
Abstract Background Oesophageal cancer has a poor 5 year survival and surgery is the mainstay of curative treatment for the majority of cases. Minimally invasive surgery is practiced in a number of formats (open thorax/open abdomen, open thorax/lap abdomen, thoracoscopic/lap abdomen) and its benefits have been subject to a number of trials. Methods We interrogated a prospectively recorded database of oesophagogastric cancer surgery from a large single centre to compare oesophagectomy cases performed with curative intent comparing laparoscopic abdomen plus open thorax versus a totally open operation. Transhiatal oesophagectomies were excluded. Baseline data was compared to establish whether groups were equally matched and outcomes of length of stay, any complication, anastomotic leak, number of lymph nodes yielded, 30 day mortality and 90 day mortality were subject to statistical analysis. Missing data was not imputed. Results Sixty-nine hybrid oesophagectomies (laparoscopic abdomen, open thoracic phase) and 373 totally open procedures were performed between January 2017-May 2022. Both groups were equally matched in terms of age, performance status, ASA, tumour site, gender ratio and histology. LOS was 11.6 vs 13.5 (lap vs open / days), P=0.72. Complication rate was 33.3% v 37.3% (lap vs open) P= 0.53. Anastomotic leak rate was 10.1% vs 8.9% (lap vs open) P=0.73. Number of lymph nodes yielded was 25.8 ± 2.17 vs 24 ± 0.59 (lap vs open, mean ± s.e). Thirty day mortality was 2.9% vs 2.17% (lap vs open) P=0.66. Ninety day mortality was 7.25% vs 4.19% (lap vs open) P=0.27. Conclusions This 5 year dataset of equally matched laparoscopic abdominal phase vs totally open oesophagectomy procedures shows no statistically significant difference in the outcomes that were measured. The laparoscopic approach would be expected to inflict a lesser stress response than open surgery. Oesophagectomy along with possible complications may inflict a stress response that masks the benefits from laparoscopic surgery. This data supports the notion that the laparoscopic abdomen approach is not inferior to an open procedure. Interrogation of a larger 10 year dataset would be worthwhile to confirm this. Furthermore, this current study may be merely be reflective of the learning curve for the laparoscopic approach and a prospective study of our practice will be worthwhile.
Abstract Background With many resources redirected to care for the those affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, the NHS faced unprecedented pressure to maintain oesophagogastric (OG) cancer resectional services. Our institution along with many tertiary units across the country were faced with limited access to essential critical care beds. The implementation of emergency contracts between the NHS and the independent sector (IS) allowed our unit to maintain a high volume resectional service by utilising the resources of a local private hospital with HDU/ ITU provision. We began operating within the IS shortly after the first UK lockdown in March 2020, and continued through till February 2022. During this period, we continued operating at our tertiary unit (TU) albeit at a reduced capacity. This study aimed to evaluate the surgical outcomes of patients undergoing major OG resectional surgery between the two sites. Methods This retrospective study included all patients who underwent major OG resectional surgery (including GIST) from March 2020-February 2022. Operation type and site were identified using OPCS-4 clinical codes and combined with National OG Cancer Audit (NOGCA) data to compare basic patient demographics, length of stay, complication rates, COVID infection rates and 90-day mortality. Descriptive and statistical analysis between the two operating sites was performed. Results A total of 204 major OG resections were undertaken, 44% (89) at our TU;57 oesophagectomies and 32 gastrectomies, with 56% (115) at a local IS hospital;86 oesophagectomies and 29 gastrectomies. Additionally, 13 (6.4%) open and close procedures were performed across both sites. Median patient age was similar, 69 (45–86) years at our TU v. 68 (38–85) years at the IS site. A higher proportion of ASA 3 patients (46%) were operated on at our TU. No difference in median length of stay was observed; TU= 8 (1–93) days v. IS =9 (3–69) days, this included all patients who were repatriated to the TU. Higher complication rates seemed to occur in patients operated at the IS site v. the TU though these did not reach statistical significance; 18 (15.7%) patients suffered an anastomotic leak v. 9 (10.1%) respectively (p= 0.246). 21 (18.3%) v. 13 (14.6%) patients suffered a major respiratory (p=0.487) and 4 (3.5%) v. 1 (1.1%) a major cardiac (p=0.281) complication. There were no cases of COVID infection within 30 days of primary procedure at the IS site, with 2 cases within the TU cohort. Our 90-day mortality rates were similar (IS= 4.54% v. TU=5.32%), p=0.661. Conclusions Our study demonstrates that resection of patients with OG cancer is feasible in an independent sector hospital if supported by critical care. It allowed a high-volume tertiary unit to continue offering potentially curative surgery to patients whose treatment options would have otherwise been limited to oncological therapy only. Long term survival data compared to non-resecting trusts is required to determine whether this approach was superior. When considering future pandemic planning, we have demonstrated the value of this model in maintaining major OG resectional services.
Diaphragmatic and hiatus hernias can cause mild chronic symptoms or have an acute presentation with gastric volvulus and obstruction. Elective or emergency surgery is indicated in symptomatic patients and nowadays is generally performed laparoscopically.
Abstract Background Surgery is the primary treatment that can offer potential cure for gastric cancer, but is associated with significant risks. Identifying optimal surgical approaches should be based on comparing outcomes from well designed trials. Currently, trials report different outcomes, making synthesis of evidence difficult. To address this, the aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS)—a standardized group of outcomes important to key international stakeholders—that should be reported by future trials in this field. Methods Stage 1 of the study involved identifying potentially important outcomes from previous trials and a series of patient interviews. Stage 2 involved patients and healthcare professionals prioritizing outcomes using a multilanguage international Delphi survey that informed an international consensus meeting at which the COS was finalized. Results Some 498 outcomes were identified from previously reported trials and patient interviews, and rationalized into 56 items presented in the Delphi survey. A total of 952 patients, surgeons, and nurses enrolled in round 1 of the survey, and 662 (70 per cent) completed round 2. Following the consensus meeting, eight outcomes were included in the COS: disease-free survival, disease-specific survival, surgery-related death, recurrence, completeness of tumour removal, overall quality of life, nutritional effects, and ‘serious’ adverse events. Conclusion A COS for surgical trials in gastric cancer has been developed with international patients and healthcare professionals. This is a minimum set of outcomes that is recommended to be used in all future trials in this field to improve trial design and synthesis of evidence.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
