A successful clinical pathway protocol for minimally invasive esophagectomy
- PMID: 31286257
- DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-06946-0
A successful clinical pathway protocol for minimally invasive esophagectomy
Abstract
Background: Minimally invasive esophagectomy is associated with significant morbidity, which can substantially influence the hospital length of stay for patients. Anastomotic leak is the most devastating complication. Minimizing major postoperative complications can facilitate adherence to a clinical pathway protocol and can decrease hospital length of stay.
Methods: This is a retrospective study of 130 patients who underwent an elective laparoscopic and thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma between August 2014 and June 2018. A total of 112 patients (86%) underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation. All of the 130 patients underwent a laparoscopic gastric devascularization procedure a median of 15 days prior to the esophagectomy. The target discharge date was postoperative day number 8.
Results: Thirty patients (23.08%) had postoperative complications. Atrial fibrillation (20 patients) [15.38%] was the most frequent complication. Four patients (3.1%) developed an anastomotic leak. There was one postoperative death (0.77%) in the cohort of patients. The median length of stay was 8 days. The mean length of stay for patients without complications was 8 days ± 1.2 days and 12.4 days ± 7.1 days for patients with one or more complications (p = 0.002).
Conclusion: The development of postoperative complications after minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy significantly increases hospital length of stay. Performing the operation with a specialized tandem surgical team and including preoperative ischemic preconditioning of the stomach minimizes overall and anastomotic complications and facilitates on time hospital discharge as defined by a perioperative clinical pathway protocol.
Keywords: Esophageal carcinoma; Ischemic preconditioning; Minimally invasive esophagectomy; Rapid recovery protocol.
References
-
- Pennathaur A, Gibson MK, Jobe BA et al (2013) Oesophageal carcinoma. Lancet 321:400–412 - DOI
-
- Kamangar F, Dores GM, Anderson WF (2006) Patterns of cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence across five continents: defining priorities to reduce cancer disparities in different geographic regions of the world. J Clin Oncol 24:2137–2150 - DOI
-
- Varghese TK Jr, Wood DE, Farjah F et al (2011) Variation in esophagectomy outcomes in hospitals meeting Leapfrog volume outcome standards. Ann Thorac Surg 91:1003–1009 - DOI
-
- Rizk NP, Bach PB, Schrag D et al (2004) The impact of complications on outcomes after resection for esophageal and gastoesophageal junction carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 198:42–50 - DOI
-
- Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O et al (2012) Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg 1:95–102 - DOI
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
