Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery logoLink to Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery
. 2020 Feb 12;4(2):126–134. doi: 10.1002/ags3.12315

Postoperative complications of minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Soji Ozawa 1,✉, Kazuo Koyanagi 1, Yamato Ninomiya 1, Kentaro Yatabe 1, Tadashi Higuchi 1
PMCID: PMC7105848  PMID: 32258977

Abstract

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been performed increasingly more frequently for the treatment of esophageal cancer, ever since it was first described in 1992. However, the incidence of postoperative complications of MIE has not yet been well‐characterized, because (a) there are few reports of studies with a sufficient sample size, (b) a variety of minimally invasive surgical techniques are used, and (c) there are few reports in which an established system for classifying the severity of complications is examined. According to an analysis performed by the Esophageal Complications Consensus Group, the most common complications of MIE are pneumonia, arrhythmia, anastomotic leakage, conduit necrosis, chylothorax, and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. Therefore, we decided to focus on these complications. We selected 48 out of 1245 reports of studies (a) that included more than 50 patients each, (b) in which the esophagectomy technique used was clearly described, and (c) in which the complications were adequately described. The overall incidences of the postoperative complications of MIE for esophageal cancer were analyzed according to the MIE technique adopted, that is, McKeown MIE, Ivor Lewis MIE, robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE, robotic‐assisted Ivor Lewis MIE, or mediastinoscopic transmediastinal esophagectomy. Pneumonia, arrhythmia, anastomotic leakage, and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy occurred at an incidence rate of about 10% each; Ivor Lewis MIE was associated with a relatively low incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. It is important to recognize that the incidences of complications of MIE are influenced by the MIE technique adopted and the extent of lymph node dissection.

Keywords: complication, Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, McKeown esophagectomy, minimally invasive esophagectomy, transmediastinal esophagectomy

Short abstract

The overall incidences of the postoperative complications of MIE for esophageal cancer were analyzed according to the MIE technique adopted, that is, McKeown MIE, Ivor Lewis MIE, robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE, robotic‐assisted Ivor Lewis MIE, or mediastinoscopic transmediastinal esophagectomy. Pneumonia, arrhythmia, anastomotic leakage, and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy occurred at an incidence rate of about 10% each; Ivor Lewis MIE was associated with a relatively low incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. It is important to recognize that the incidences of complications of MIE are influenced by the MIE technique adopted and the extent of lymph node dissection.

1. INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been performed increasingly more frequently for the treatment of esophageal cancer, ever since it was first reported by Cuschieri et al in 1992.1 However, in contrast to the case for open transthoracic esophagectomy, the postoperative complications of MIE have not yet been well‐characterized, because: (a) there are few reports of studies with a sufficient sample size; (b) a variety of MIE techniques are used, such as McKeown esophagectomy (thoracoscopic esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis),2 Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (thoracoscopic esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis),3 and transmediastinal esophagectomy (TME, mediastinoscopic esophagectomy with cervical anastomosis)4; and (c) there are few reports in which an established system for classifying the severity of complications, such as the Clavien–Dindo classification,5 Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE),6 or Complications Definitions by the Esophageal Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) has been used.7

According to an analysis of the data obtained from 24 high‐volume centers for esophageal surgery in 14 countries conducted by the ECCG with the objective of developing a standardized platform for recording complications and quality measures associated with esophagectomy, the most common individual complications were pneumonia (14.6%), arrhythmia (14.5%), anastomotic leakage (11.4%), conduit necrosis (1.3%), chylothorax (4.7%), and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (4.2%).7 Therefore, we decided to focus on these complications in this review.

In the initial decades in the history of MIE, the number of studies that included sufficient numbers of patients was too few to allow reliable analysis of the rates of complications. As the number of treated patients at each institution began to increase around the world, studies conducted on larger study samples began to be published. Herein, we present a review of studies that included a sample size of at least 50 cases each. There are no results of nationwide analyses of the complications of MIE depending on the MIE technique adopted. Moreover, robotic‐assisted esophagectomy has also begun to be performed and some informative data have been reported, so that all the available data need to be collated and analyzed comprehensively.

To the best of our knowledge, there are only a few reports on the postoperative complications of MIE for esophageal cancer analyzed according to the MIE technique employed. In this review, we analyze very recent evidence reported in respect to the complications of MIE.

2. STUDY SELECTION

An electronic search for articles was conducted of the Medline database and a manual search was conducted for references related to studies on MIE published until 8 September 2019. A total of 48 out of 1245 studies were selected (a) that included more than 50 patients each, (b) in which the MIE technique used was clearly described, and (c) in which the complications were adequately described.8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 Four articles contained descriptions of two different MIE techniques, and a final 52 reports of MIE techniques described in 48 articles were analyzed.

2.1. Technique of MIE and postoperative complications

The median incidence of pneumonia was 10.6% in the reports of McKeown MIE, 12.3% in the reports of Ivor Lewis MIE, 27.8% in the reports of robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE, 6.9% in the reports of robotic‐assisted Ivor Lewis MIE, 6.5% in the reports of TME, and 10.6% overall in the reports of MIE (Tables 1 and 2). The median incidence of arrhythmia was 9.3% in the reports of McKeown MIE, 17.2% in the reports of Ivor Lewis MIE, 15.3% in the reports of robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE, 11.7% in the reports of robotic‐assisted Ivor Lewis MIE, 3.6% in the reports of TME, and 11.7% overall in the reports of MIE. The median incidence of anastomotic leakage was 7.8% in the reports of McKeown MIE, 10.0% in the reports of Ivor Lewis MIE, 18.5% in the reports of robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE, 6.0% in the reports of robotic‐assisted Ivor Lewis MIE, 9.8% in the reports of TME, and 9.3% overall in the reports of MIE. The median incidence of conduit necrosis ranged from 0% to 4.0%. The median incidence of chylothorax was 3.2% in the reports of McKeown MIE, 3.8% in the reports of Ivor Lewis MIE, 24.6% in the reports of robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE, 2.4% in the reports of robotic‐assisted Ivor Lewis MIE, 0.0% in the reports of TME, and 3.4% overall in the reports of MIE. The median incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy was 9.2% in the reports of McKeown MIE, 0.3% in the reports of Ivor Lewis MIE, 9.3% in the reports of robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE, 6.6% in the reports of robotic‐assisted Ivor Lewis MIE, 19.0% in the reports of TME, and 8.9% overall in the reports of MIE.

Table 1.

Postoperative complications of MIE

No. Authors Year Ref Country Technique Extent of LND N (cases) Pathology (cases) Definition of Complication Complication (%)
SCC Adeno. Other Pneumonia Arrhythmia Leakage Cond.nec. Chylothorax RLNP
1 Osugi 2003 8 Japan M UML 77 77 0 0   15.6 1.3 1.3   3.9 14.3
2 Yamamoto 2005 9 Japan M UML 112 109 3 0   6.3   8 0.8 2.7 8.9
3 Shiraishi 2006 10 Japan M UML 78 73       20.5 2.6 11.5     33.3
4 Palanivelu 2006 11 India M UML 130 130 0 0   1.5 5.4 2.3   0.8 1.5
5 Parameswaran 2009 12 UK M UML 50 5 41 4   8 0 14 4 6 12
6 Puntambekar 2010 13 India M UML 112 100 12 0   7.1   2.7     3.6
7 Gao 2011 14 China M UML 96 90 4 2   13.5   7.3   1.1 2.1
8 Kinjo 2012 15 Japan M UML 106 102 3 1 CTCAE 16 9.4 10.4   0.9 19.8
9 Shen 2012 16 China M UML 76 73 1 2   6.6 11.8 21.1 2.6 1.3 9.2
10 Chen 2013 17 China M UML 142 131 11 0   9.2 2.8 6.3 0.7 2.8 5.6
11 Kubo 2014 18 Japan M UML 93         8.6   6.4 2.1 8.6 34
12 Meng 2014 19 China M UML 94 87 3 4   9.6 4.1 6.4   3.2 4.3
13 Hsu 2014 20 Taiwan M UML 66 100 0 0   10.6   27.3   6.1  
14 Nozaki 2015 21 Japan M UML 101   0   CTCAE 7.9   6.9     14.9
15 Li 2015 22 China M UML 89 82 2 5   7.9 7.9 21.3   1.1 20.2
16 Tanaka 2015 23 Japan M UML 59 59 0 0 CTCAE 13.6 11.9 6.8   0 22
17 Uchihara 2018 24 Japan M UML 184       CTCAE 12       2.2  
18 Seesing 2018 25 Netherlands M UML 121         36.4 19.8 26.4   33.9 7.4
19 Kanekiyo 2018 26 Japan M UML 65 65 0 0   16.9 9.2 10.8     23.1
20 Koyanagi 2018 27 Japan M UML 67 63 4 0   7.5   7.5     19.4
21 Akiyama 2018 28 Japan M UML 87 84 2 1   11.5   0 0 0 18.4
22 Koterazawa 2019 29 Japan M UML 162       CD 14.8   17.9     19.8
23 Yamashita 2019 30 Japan M UML 104       CD 10.6   5.8   4.8 20.2
24 Luketich 2003 31 USA M ML 220         7.7 11.7 11.7 3.2 3.2 3.6
25 Smithers 2007 32 Australia M ML 332 77 237     26,0.2 16.6 5.4 1.5 5.1 2.4
26 Dolan 2013 33 USA M ML 68         25.6 32.9 9.8   2.4 7.3
27 Hong 2013 34 China M ML 55 0 55 0   9.1 9.1 10.9   5.5 0
28 Brown 2018 35 USA M ML 61 10 51 0 CD 36.1 36.1 6.6 1.6 3.3 1.6
29 van Workum 2018 36 Netherlands M ML 226 45 169 12 CD 24.8 26.1 26.5   13.3 9
30 Zhang 2019 37 China IL UML 108 107 0 1   9.3   5.6   2.8 6.5
31 Zingg 2009 38 Australia IL ML 56 10 46 0   30.9   20   3.6  
32 Noble 2013 39 UK IL ML 53       CD 34 11.3 9.4   1.9  
33 Xie 2014 40 China IL ML 106 98 7 1   4.7 2.8 4.7   3.8 3.8
34 Tapias 2014 41 USA IL ML 80 11 68 1   6.3 13.8 0 0 3.8 0
35 Sihag 2015 42 USA IL ML 600         12.8   13.8   4.3  
36 Tapias 2016 43 USA IL ML 56 10 46 0   5.4 17.9 0   5.4 0
37 van Workum 2018 36 Netherlands IL ML 561 53 498 10 CD 27.8 17.1 14.4   8.7 0.5
38 Gambhir 2019 44 USA IL ML 75             10.6      
39 Meredith 2019 45 USA IL ML 95         13.7 17.9 4.2      
40 Souche 2019 46 France IL ML 58 13 45 0 CD 10.3 17.2 31 0   0
41 Tagkalos 2019 47 Germany IL ML 50         18   18      
42 Naffouje 2019 48 USA IL ML 161 14 146 1   11.8   13      
43 Lorimer 2019 49 USA IL ML 200 23 176 1   17 23 8.5      
44 van der Sluis 2015 50 Netherlands RM UML 108 20 78 10 CD 33.3 8.3 18.5   17.6 9.3
45 Park 2018 51 Korea RM UML 140 131       8.8   9.3 0   25
46 van der Sluis 2019 52 Netherlands RM UML 54 13 41 0   27.8 22.2 24.1 1.9 31.5 9.3
47 Zhang 2019 37 China RIL UML 76 74 0 2   6.6   9.2   1.3 6.6
48 Meredith 2018 53 USA RIL ML 147 14 126 7 CD 6.8 11.6 2.7   3.4  
49 Meredith 2019 45 USA RIL ML 144         6.9 11.8 2.8      
50 Tagkalos 2019 47 Germany RIL ML 50         12   12      
51 Wang 2015 54 China TME UML 194 194 0 0   6.2 3.6 4.6     4.6
52 Fujiwara 2017 55 Japan TME UML 60 58 2 0 CD, ECCG 6.7   15   0 33.3
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: Adeno., adenocarcinoma; CD, Clavien–Dindo classification; cond.nec., conduit necrosis; CTCAE, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; ECCG, Complications Definitions by the Esophageal Complications Consensus Group; IL, Ivor Lewis; LND, lymph node dissection; M, McKeown; MIE, Minimally invasive esophagectomy; ML, middle and lower mediastinum; RIL, Robotic‐assisted Ivor Lewis; RLNP, recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy; RM, Robotic‐assisted McKeown; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; TME, transmediastinal esophagectomy; UML, upper, middle, and lower mediastinum.

Table 2.

Technique of MIE and postoperative complications

Technique of MIE Complication (%)
Pneumonia Arrhythmia Leakage Cond.nec. Chylothorax RLNP
M (n = 29a)
Max. 36.4 36.1 27.3 4.0 33.9 34.0
Median 10.6 9.3 7.8 1.6 3.2 9.2
Min. 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
IL (n = 14)
Max. 34.0 23.0 31.0 0.0 8.7 6.5
Median 12.8 17.2 10.0 0.0 3.8 0.3
Min. 4.7 2.8 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0
RM (n = 3)
Max. 33.3 22.2 24.1 1.9 31.5 25.0
Median 27.8 15.3 18.5 1.0 24.6 9.3
Min. 8.8 8.3 9.3 0.0 17.6 9.3
RIL (n = 4)
Max. 12.0 11.8 12.0   3.4 6.6
Median 6.9 11.7 6.0   2.4 6.6
Min. 6.6 11.6 2.7   1.3 6.6
TME (n = 2)
Max. 6.7 3.6 15.0   0.0 33.3
Median 6.5 3.6 9.8   0.0 19.0
Min. 6.2 3.6 4.6   0.0 4.6
Total (n = 52)
Max. 36.4 36.1 31.0 4.0 33.9 34.0
Median 10.6 11.7 9.3 1.5 3.4 8.9
Min. 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: cond.nec., conduit necrosis; IL, Ivor Lewis; M, McKeown; MIE, Minimally invasive esophagectomy; RIL, Robotic‐assisted Ivor Lewis; RLNP, recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy; RM, Robotic‐assisted McKeown; TME, transmediastinal esophagectomy.

a

Number of reports.

2.2. Extent of lymph node dissection and postoperative complications

The median incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy was 13.2% in the patients who underwent lymph node dissection of the nodes in the upper, middle, and lower mediastinum, and 1.6% in the patients who underwent lymph node dissection of the nodes in the middle and lower mediastinum (Tables 1 and 3).

Table 3.

Extent of lymph node dissection and postoperative complications

Extent of LND Complication (%)
Pneumonia Arrhythmia Leakage Cond.nec. Chylothorax RLNP
UML (n = 30a)
Max. 36.4 22.2 27.3 4.0 33.9 34.0
Median 9.5 7.9 8.0 1.4 2.8 13.2
Min. 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5
ML (n = 22)
Max. 36.1 36.1 31.0 3.2 13.3 9.0
Median 12.4 16.9 10.2 1.5 3.8 1.6
Min. 4.7 2.8 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0
Total (n = 52)
Max. 36.4 36.1 31.0 4.0 33.9 34.0
Median 10.6 11.7 9.3 1.5 3.4 8.9
Min. 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: cond.nec., conduit necrosis; LND, lymph node dissection; ML, middle and lower mediastinum; RLNP, recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy; UML, upper, middle, and lower mediastinum.

a

Number of reports.

2.3. Technique of MIE and extent of lymph node dissection

Lymph node dissection of the nodes in the upper, middle, and lower mediastinum was adopted in 81% of reports of McKeown MIE or robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE, in 11% of reports of Ivor Lewis MIE or robotic‐assisted Ivor Lewis MIE, and in 100% of reports of TME (Tables 1 and 4).

Table 4.

Technique of MIE and extent of lymph node dissection

Technique of MIE Extent of LND Total
UML ML
M/RM 26 (81%)a 6 (19%) 32 (100%)
IL/RIL 2 (11%) 16 (89%) 18 (100%)
TME 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%)
Total 30 (58%) 22 (42%) 52 (100%)
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: IL, Ivor Lewis; LND, lymph node dissection; M, McKeown; MIE, Minimally invasive esophagectomy; ML, middle and lower mediastinum; RIL, Robotic‐assisted Ivor Lewis; RM, Robotic‐assisted McKeown; TME, transmediastinal esophagectomy; UML, upper, middle, and lower mediastinum.

a

Number of reports.

2.4. Technique of MIE and dominant pathology

The percentage of reports with a higher number of cases of squamous cell carcinoma than the number of adenocarcinoma cases was 68% among the reports of McKeown MIE or robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE, 27% among the reports of Ivor Lewis MIE or robotic‐assisted Ivor Lewis MIE, and 100% among the reports of TME (Tables 1 and 5).

Table 5.

Technique of MIE and dominant pathology

Technique of MIE Dominant pathology Total
SCC Adeno.
M/RM 15 (68%)a 7 (32%) 22 (100%)
IL/RIL 3 (27%) 8 (73%) 11 (100%)
TME 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%)
Total 20 (57%) 15 (43%) 35 (100%)
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: Adeno., adenocarcinoma; IL, Ivor Lewis; M, McKeown; MIE, Minimally invasive esophagectomy; RIL, Robotic‐assisted Ivor Lewis; RM, Robotic‐assisted McKeown; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; TME, transmediastinal esophagectomy.

a

Number of reports.

2.5. Technique of MIE adopted in different countries

Countries in which the rate of selection of McKeown MIE or robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE was more than 80% were India, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, and Taiwan. The largest number, that is, 13 out of 29 (45%), of reports of McKeown MIE was from Japan. The median incidences of pneumonia, arrhythmia, anastomotic leakage, conduit necrosis, chylothorax, and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy were 12.0%, 9.2%, 7.2%, 0.8%, 2.5%, and 19.8%, respectively, in the reports of McKeown MIE in Japan. Countries in which the rate of adoption of Ivor Lewis MIE or robotic‐assisted Ivor Lewis MIE was more than 75% were France, Germany, and the USA (Tables 1 and 6).

Table 6.

Technique of MIE adopted in different countries

Country Technique of MIE
M/RM IL/RIL TME Total
Australia 1 (50%)a 1 (50%)   2 (100%)
China 6 (60%) 3 (30%) 1 (10%) 10 (100%)
France   1 (100%)   1 (100%)
Germany   2 (100%)   2 (100%)
India 2 (100%)     2 (100%)
Japan 13 (93%)   1 (7%) 14 (100%)
Korea 1 (100%)     1 (100%)
Netherlands 4 (80%) 1 (20%)   5 (100%)
Taiwan 1 (100%)     1 (100%)
UK 1 (50%) 1 (50%)   2 (100%)
USA 3 (25%) 9 (75%)   12 (100%)
Total 32 (62%) 18 (35%) 2 (4%) 52 (100%)
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: IL, Ivor Lewis; M, McKeown; MIE, Minimally invasive esophagectomy; RIL, Robotic‐assisted Ivor Lewis; RM, Robotic‐assisted McKeown; TME, transmediastinal esophagectomy.

a

Number of reports.

2.6. Definition of complications

The Clavien–Dindo classification, CTCAE, or Complications Definitions by the ECCG was used for classifying the severity of complications in 14 of the 52 (27%) reports (Table 1).

3. DISCUSSION

The median incidences of pneumonia in all reports, except for the reports of robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE, were less than the 14.6% indicated in the ECCG report. The incidence of pneumonia was higher in the reports of robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE; two out of the three articles written on reports of robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE were written by the same author,50, 52 and it is possible that the surgical technique used by these authors was related to the higher incidence of pneumonia. One of the three reports of robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE reported an incidence of 8.8%,51 which was within the average range. The median incidences of arrhythmia in all reports, except for the reports of Ivor Lewis MIE and robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE, were less than the 14.5% indicated in the ECCG report. The median incidences of anastomotic leakage in all reports, except for the reports of robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE, were less than the 11.4% indicated in the ECCG report. The incidence of anastomotic leakage was relatively high in two of the three reports of robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE,50, 52 and it is possible that this higher incidence was related to the handsewn anastomotic technique used by the authors. However, in the remaining one of the three articles,51 which described the use of the stapler technique for anastomosis, the reported incidence was only 9.3%, which was within the average range. The heterogeneous anastomotic techniques were used in all studies, and no robust data are currently available on the association of the anastomotic technique (for example, handsewn versus stapled or different types of anastomotic configuration) with differences in outcome.36 It is necessary to clarify whether anastomotic techniques affect outcome after MIE in the future. Data on the incidence of conduit necrosis was described in only 13 of the 52 reports (23%) and this complication appeared to be rare. The median incidences of chylothorax in all reports, except for the reports of robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE, was less than the 4.7% indicated in the ECCG report. Resection of the thoracic duct may increase the risk of this complication.56 The incidence of chylothorax was relatively high in two reports of robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE,50, 52 which could be attributable to resection of the thoracic duct described in both reports.

The median incidences of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy in all reports, except for the reports of Ivor Lewis MIE, were more than the 4.2% indicated in the ECCG report. Dissection of the upper mediastinal lymph nodes, especially lymph nodes around the right and the left recurrent laryngeal nerves, are oncologically necessary for all patients with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, irrespective of the location.57 In general, lymph node dissection of nodes in the upper, middle, and lower mediastinum is selected in McKeown MIE, and lymph node dissection of only nodes in the middle and lower mediastinum, that is, no dissection of lymph nodes around the recurrent laryngeal nerves, is selected in Ivor Lewis MIE. Therefore, in Ivor Lewis MIE, the recurrent laryngeal nerves were rarely injured, and the rate of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy was very low. On the other hand, more extensive dissection of lymph nodes from the chest and neck is performed in McKeown MIE than in Ivor Lewis MIE, and when anastomosis was performed in McKeown MIE, the upper esophagus was pulled out from the thoracic inlet. These procedures could lead to injury of the recurrent laryngeal nerves. Actually, when the relationships between the extent of lymph node dissection and the incidences of postoperative complications were analyzed, recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy rarely occurred in the patients who underwent lymph node dissection of nodes in the middle and lower mediastinum than in the patients who underwent lymph node dissection of nodes in the upper, middle, and lower mediastinum (Table 3).

However, is it true that lymph node dissection of the nodes in the upper, middle and lower mediastinum is selected in all cases of McKeown MIE and that lymph node dissection of only nodes in the middle and lower mediastinum is selected in all cases of Ivor Lewis MIE? Surprisingly, lymph node dissection of only nodes in the middle and lower mediastinum was reported in 19% of reports of McKeown MIE or robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE. On the other hand, lymph node dissection of nodes in the upper, middle, and lower mediastinum was reported in 11% of reports of Ivor Lewis MIE or robotic‐assisted Ivor Lewis MIE (Table 4). For example, Zhang et al adopted robotic‐assisted Ivor Lewis MIE with lymph node dissection of nodes in the upper, middle, and lower mediastinum, and reported a recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy rate of 6.6%.37 Therefore, we would like to mention that the MIE technique adopted does not always automatically reflect the extent of lymph node dissection. Attention must be paid not only to the MIE technique but also to the extent of lymph node dissection when analyzing the postoperative complications of MIE, especially recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. Van Workum et al performed propensity score‐matched analysis to compare minimally invasive Ivor Lewis versus minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy.36 They concluded that Ivor Lewis MIE was associated with a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage, 90‐day mortality and other postoperative morbidities as compared to McKeown MIE in patients in whom both procedures were oncologically feasible. This is very important information relevant to only patients with tumors in the distal esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. The complication rates in patients with tumors in other locations may not be similar to the rates in patients with tumors in the distal esophagus and gastroesophageal junction.

The pathology of esophageal cancer may be one of the factors guiding selection of the MIE technique to be adopted. The percentage of reports in which the number of cases of squamous cell carcinoma was more than the number of adenocarcinoma cases was 68% among the reports of McKeown MIE or robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE. On the other hand, the percentage of reports in which the number of cases of adenocarcinoma was more than the number of squamous cell carcinoma cases was 73% among the reports of Ivor Lewis MIE or robotic‐assisted Ivor Lewis MIE. Squamous cell carcinoma arises from stratified squamous epithelium anywhere in the esophagus, and the most frequent location is the middle esophagus.58, 59 Institutions where patients with squamous cell carcinoma were predominant may have tended to select McKeown MIE, robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE, or TME so as to accomplish adequate esophageal resection and lymph node dissection. Adenocarcinoma arises mainly from Barrett's epithelium and the most frequent location is the lower esophagus or the esophagogastric junction.59 Institutions where patients with adenocarcinoma were predominant may have tended to select Ivor Lewis MIE or robotic‐assisted Ivor Lewis MIE in order to accomplish adequate esophageal resection and lymph node dissection.

As for the MIE technique adopted in different countries, Asian countries and the Netherlands tended to adopt McKeown MIE, robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE, or TME. Japan published the largest number of reports of McKeown MIE. The median incidences of complications, except for the rates of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, were within average range. The reason why the rate of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy was high may be due to the nationwide consensus on the need for intensive lymph node dissection of nodes in the upper, middle, and lower mediastinum, especially of those around the bilateral recurrent laryngeal nerves.57 Western countries, except the Netherlands, tended to adopt Ivor Lewis MIE or robotic‐assisted Ivor Lewis MIE. This may be due to epidemiological and pathological reasons: squamous cell carcinoma patients are more frequent in Asian countries, while adenocarcinoma patients are more frequent in western countries.

The severities of the complications were described in only 27% of the reports. The Clavien–Dindo classification, CTCAE, and Complications Definitions by the ECCG are available. For high‐quality analysis of postoperative complications, it would be desirable for surgeons to use officially approved classifications of the severities of complications.

4. CONCLUSION

The overall incidences of postoperative complications of MIE for esophageal cancer according to the MIE technique adopted, namely, McKeown MIE, Ivor Lewis MIE, robotic‐assisted McKeown MIE, robotic‐assisted Ivor Lewis MIE or TME, were analyzed. Pneumonia, arrhythmia, anastomotic leakage, and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy occurred in about 10% of the patients each; Ivor Lewis MIE was associated with a relatively low incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. It is important to recognize that the incidences of complications are influenced by the MIE technique adopted and the extent of lymph node dissection.

DISCLOSURE

Conflict of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interests to declare.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Ms Izu Inada (Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Tokai University School of Medicine) for assisting us in the preparation of this manuscript. The authors used an English Language Service (International Medical Information Center, Tokyo, Japan) for editing the language in the manuscript.

Ozawa S, Koyanagi K, Ninomiya Y, Yatabe K, Higuchi T. Postoperative complications of minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2020;4:126–134. 10.1002/ags3.12315

REFERENCES

  • 1. Cuschieri A, Shimi S, Banting S. Endoscopic oesophagectomy through a right thoracoscopic approach. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1992;37(1):7–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. McKeown KC. Total three‐stage oesophagectomy for cancer of the oesophagus. Br J Surg. 1976;63(4):259–62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Lewis I. The surgical treatment of carcinoma of the oesophagus; with special reference to a new operation for growths of the middle third. Br J Surg. 1946;34:18–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Yoshimura S, Mori K, Yamagata Y, Aikou S, Yagi K, Nishida M, et al. Quality of life after robot‐assisted transmediastinal radical surgery for esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(5):2249–54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. National Cancer Institute . Common terminology criteria for adverse events version 3.0. 2003; Available from http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/ctcaev3.pdf. March 2003; Accessed 9 Aug 2006.
  • 7. Low DE, Kuppusamy MK, Alderson D, Cecconello I, Chang AC, Darling G, et al. Benchmarking complications associated with esophagectomy. Ann Surg. 2019;269(2):291–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Osugi H, Takemura M, Higashino M, Takada N, Lee S, Kinoshita H. A comparison of video‐assisted thoracoscopic oesophagectomy and radical lymph node dissection for squamous cell cancer of the oesophagus with open operation. Br J Surg. 2003;90(1):108–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Yamamoto S, Kawahara K, Maekawa T, Shiraishi T, Shirakusa T. Minimally invasive esophagectomy for stage I and II esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;80(6):2070–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Shiraishi T, Kawahara K, Shirakusa T, Yamamoto S, Maekawa T. Risk analysis in resection of thoracic esophageal cancer in the era of endoscopic surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;81(3):1083–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Palanivelu C, Prakash A, Senthilkumar R, Senthilnathan P, Parthasarathi R, Rajan PS, et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy: thoracoscopic mobilization of the esophagus and mediastinal lymphadenectomy in prone position–experience of 130 patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;203(1):7–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Parameswaran R, Veeramootoo D, Krishnadas R, Cooper M, Berrisford R, Wajed S. Comparative experience of open and minimally invasive esophagogastric resection. World J Surg. 2009;33(9):1868–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Puntambekar SP, Agarwal GA, Joshi SN, Rayate NV, Sathe RM, Patil AM. Thoracolaparoscopy in the lateral position for esophageal cancer: the experience of a single institution with 112 consecutive patients. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(10):2407–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Gao Y, Wang Y, Chen L, Zhao Y. Comparison of open three‐field and minimally‐invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2011;12(3):366–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Kinjo Y, Kurita N, Nakamura F, Okabe H, Tanaka E, Kataoka Y, et al. Effectiveness of combined thoracoscopic‐laparoscopic esophagectomy: comparison of postoperative complications and midterm oncological outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(2):381–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Shen Y, Zhang Y, Tan L, Feng M, Wang H, Khan MA, et al. Extensive mediastinal lymphadenectomy during minimally invasive esophagectomy: optimal results from a single center. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16(4):715–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Chen B, Zhang B, Zhu C, Ye Z, Wang C, Ma D, et al. Modified McKeown minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a 5‐year retrospective study of 142 patients in a single institution. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(12):e82428. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Kubo N, Ohira M, Yamashita Y, Sakurai K, Toyokawa T, Tanaka H, et al. The impact of combined thoracoscopic and laparoscopic surgery on pulmonary complications after radical esophagectomy in patients with resectable esophageal cancer. Anticancer Res. 2014;34(5):2399–404. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Meng F, Li Y, Ma H, Yan M, Zhang R. Comparison of outcomes of open and minimally invasive esophagectomy in 183 patients with cancer. J Thorac Dis. 2014;6(9):1218–24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Hsu PK, Huang CS, Wu YC, Chou TY, Hsu WH. Open versus thoracoscopic esophagectomy in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. World J Surg. 2014;38(2):402–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Nozaki I, Kato K, Igaki H, Ito Y, Daiko H, Yano M, et al. Evaluation of safety profile of thoracoscopic esophagectomy for T1bN0M0 cancer using data from JCOG0502: a prospective multicenter study. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(12):3519–26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Li J, Shen Y, Tan L, Feng M, Wang H, Xi Y, et al. Is minimally invasive esophagectomy beneficial to elderly patients with esophageal cancer? Surg Endosc. 2015;29(4):925–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Tanaka E, Okabe H, Kinjo Y, Tsunoda S, Obama K, Hisamori S, et al. Advantages of the prone position for minimally invasive esophagectomy in comparison to the left decubitus position: better oxygenation after minimally invasive esophagectomy. Surg Today. 2015;45(7):819–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Uchihara T, Yoshida N, Baba Y, Yagi T, Toihata T, Oda E, et al. Risk factors for pulmonary morbidities after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(6):2852–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Seesing MFJ, Goense L, Ruurda JP, Luyer MDP, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, van Hillegersberg R. Minimally invasive esophagectomy: a propensity score‐matched analysis of semiprone versus prone position. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(6):2758–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Kanekiyo S, Takeda S, Tsutsui M, Nishiyama M, Kitahara M, Shindo Y, et al. Low invasiveness of thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position for esophageal cancer: a propensity score‐matched comparison of operative approaches between thoracoscopic and open esophagectomy. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(4):1945–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Koyanagi K, Ozawa S, Tachimori Y. Minimally invasive esophagectomy in the prone position improves postoperative outcomes: role of C‐reactive protein as an indicator of surgical invasiveness. Esophagus. 2018;15(2):95–102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Akiyama Y, Iwaya T, Endo F, Nikai H, Sato K, Baba S, et al. Thoracoscopic esophagectomy with total meso‐esophageal excision reduces regional lymph node recurrence. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2018;403(8):967–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Koterazawa Y, Oshikiri T, Takiguchi G, Hasegawa H, Yamamoto M, Kanaji S, et al. Prophylactic cervical lymph node dissection in thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer increases postoperative complications and does not improve survival. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(9):2899–904. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Yamashita K, Mine S, Toihata T, Fukudome I, Okamura A, Yuda M, et al. The usefulness of three‐dimensional video‐assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients. Esophagus. 2019;16(3):272–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Luketich JD, Alvelo‐Rivera M, Buenaventura PO, Christie NA, McCaughan JS, Litle VR, et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcomes in 222 patients. Ann Surg. 2003;238(4):486–94; discussion 94–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Smithers BM, Gotley DC, Martin I, Thomas JM. Comparison of the outcomes between open and minimally invasive esophagectomy. Ann Surg. 2007;245(2):232–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Dolan JP, Kaur T, Diggs BS, Luna RA, Schipper PH, Tieu BH, et al. Impact of comorbidity on outcomes and overall survival after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(11):4094–103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Hong L, Zhang Y, Zhang H, Yang J, Zhao Q. The short‐term outcome of three‐field minimally invasive esophagectomy for Siewert type I esophagogastric junctional adenocarcinoma. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;96(5):1826–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Brown AM, Pucci MJ, Berger AC, Tatarian T, Evans NR, Rosato EL, et al. A standardized comparison of peri‐operative complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy: Ivor Lewis versus McKeown. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(1):204–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. van Workum F, Slaman AE, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Gisbertz SS, Kouwenhoven EA, van Det MJ, et al. Propensity score‐matched analysis comparing minimally invasive ivor lewis versus minimally invasive Mckeown esophagectomy. Ann Surg. 2020;271(1):128–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Zhang Y, Han Y, Gan Q, Xiang J, Jin R, Chen K, et al. Early outcomes of robot‐assisted versus thoracoscopic‐assisted ivor lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a Propensity Score‐Matched Study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(5):1284–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Zingg U, McQuinn A, DiValentino D, Esterman AJ, Bessell JR, Thompson SK, et al. Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;87(3):911–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Noble F, Kelly JJ, Bailey IS, Byrne JP, Underwood TJ. South Coast Cancer Collaboration O‐G. A prospective comparison of totally minimally invasive versus open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus. 2013;26(3):263–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Xie MR, Liu CQ, Guo MF, Mei XY, Sun XH, Xu MQ. Short‐term outcomes of minimally invasive Ivor‐Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97(5):1721–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Tapias LF, Morse CR. Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: description of a learning curve. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;218(6):1130–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Sihag S, Kosinski AS, Gaissert HA, Wright CD, Schipper PH. Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a comparison of early surgical outcomes from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101(4):1281–8; discussion 8–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Tapias LF, Mathisen DJ, Wright CD, Wain JC, Gaissert HA, Muniappan A, et al. Outcomes with open and minimally invasive ivor lewis esophagectomy after neoadjuvant therapy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101(3):1097–103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Gambhir S, Daly S, Maithel S, Putnam LR, Nguyen J, Smith BR, et al. Evolving changes of minimally invasive esophagectomy: a single‐institution experience. Surg Endosc. 2019. 10.1007/s00464-019-07057-6 [Epub ahead of print] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Meredith K, Blinn P, Maramara T, Takahashi C, Huston J, Shridhar R. Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive and robotic‐assisted esophagectomy. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(2):814–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Souche R, Nayeri M, Chati R, Huet E, Donici I, Tuech JJ, et al. Thoracoscopy in prone position with two‐lung ventilation compared to conventional thoracotomy during Ivor Lewis procedure: a multicenter case‐control study. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(1):142–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Tagkalos E, Goense L, Hoppe‐Lotichius M, Ruurda JP, Babic B, Hadzijusufovic E, et al. Robot‐assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer: a propensity‐matched analysis. Dis Esophagus. 2019. 10.1093/dote/doz060 [Epub ahead of print] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Naffouje SA, Salloum RH, Khalaf Z, Salti GI. Outcomes of open versus minimally invasive ivor‐lewis esophagectomy for cancer: a propensity‐score matched analysis of NSQIP database. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(7):2001–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Lorimer PD, Motz BM, Boselli DM, Reames MK, Hill JS, Salo JC. Quality improvement in minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcome improvement through data review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(1):177–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. van der Sluis PC, Ruurda JP, Verhage RJ, van der Horst S Haverkamp L, Siersema PD, et al. Oncologic long‐term results of robot‐assisted minimally invasive thoraco‐laparoscopic esophagectomy with two‐field lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(Suppl 3):S1350–S1356. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Park S, Hyun K, Lee HJ, Park IK, Kim YT, Kang CH. A study of the learning curve for robotic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018;53(4):862–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. van der Sluis PC, van der Horst S, May AM, Schippers C, Brosens LAA, Joore HCA, et al. Robot‐assisted minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2019;269(4):621–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Meredith K, Huston J, Andacoglu O, Shridhar R. Safety and feasibility of robotic‐assisted Ivor‐Lewis esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus. 2018;31(7). 10.1093/dote/doy005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Wang QY, Li JP, Zhang L, Jiang NQ, Wang ZL, Zhang XY. Mediastinoscopic esophagectomy for patients with early esophageal cancer. J Thorac Dis. 2015;7(7):1235–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Fujiwara H, Shiozaki A, Konishi H, Kosuga T, Komatsu S, Ichikawa D, et al. Perioperative outcomes of single‐port mediastinoscope‐assisted transhiatal esophagectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus. 2017;30(10):1–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Oshikiri T, Takiguchi G, Miura S, Goto H, Otsubo D, Hasegawa H, et al. Thoracic duct resection during esophagectomy does not contribute to improved prognosis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a Propensity Score Matched‐Cohort Study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(12):4053–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Tachimori Y, Ozawa S, Numasaki H, Matsubara H, Shinoda M, Toh Y, et al. Efficacy of lymph node dissection by node zones according to tumor location for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Esophagus. 2016;13:1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Tachimori Y, Ozawa S, Numasaki H, Ishihara R, Matsubara H, Muro K, et al. Comprehensive registry of esophageal cancer in Japan, 2012. Esophagus. 2019;16(3):221–45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Zhang Y. Epidemiology of esophageal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(34):5598–606. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES