Pros and cons of the gasless laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy for upper esophageal carcinoma

Abstract

Background: Controversies on how to treat upper esophageal carcinoma have existed for several decades. With the application of minimally invasive techniques, surgical treatment to upper esophageal carcinoma tends to show more advantages and attract more patients. Up to now, most hospitals adopted the combined thoracoscopic and laparoscopic esophagectomy (CTLE) as the way of minimally invasive surgery for upper esophageal carcinoma. But CTLE to treat upper esophageal carcinoma has its drawbacks, such as demanding certain pulmonary function and severe postoperative regurgitation. In 2011, we developed the gasless laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy (LTE) to treat upper esophageal carcinoma, which showed some advantages. The aim of this article was to compare LTE with CTLE in treating upper thoracic or cervical esophageal carcinoma and assess the value of LTE. Methods: From 2009 to 2014, esophagectomy has been performed by the introduction of minimally invasive surgery in a total of 83 patients with upper thoracic or cervical esophageal carcinoma. Among these patients, LTE was performed in 27 cases (Group 1), while CTLE was performed in the other 56 (Group 2). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was done in patients of Group 1. Results: There were no operation-related deaths and conversion to open procedure. There was no significant difference in postoperative complications, ventilation time, ICU stay, hospital stay, and anastomotic leak rates between the two groups. But LTE was associated with shorter operative time and less intraoperative blood loss. In Group 2, 21 (37.5 %) patients had postoperative pulmonary complications, while in Group 1, there were 6 (22.2 %) patients having pulmonary complications at least one time. Results of 24-h pH monitoring and manometry showed that postoperative laryngo-pharyngeal reflux (PLPR) was more severe in Group 2 patients than in Group 1; for Group 1, PLPR mainly occurred on sleep stage, while for Group 2, PLPR might exist all the day with short intervals and last longer at night. The median overall survival was 27.2 months after CTLE and 30.8 months after LTE (P = 0.962). There was no significant difference in survival at 2, 3 and 4 years between the two groups. Conclusions: Compared with CTLE, LTE is a more minimally invasive approach to effectively treat patients with upper esophageal carcinoma. Laryngo-pharyngeal reflux after LTE was less severe than that after CTLE, which might lower incidence of pulmonary complications. For the elderly patients, LTE seems more suitable.