Menu
Esophagectomy is a major, invasive, and long-lasting surgery performed in patients with comorbidities and compromised nutritional conditions. The historical challenges of surgical treatment of esophageal cancer are to overcome mortality, improve survival, and decrease morbidity.
The aim of the study is to compare the intraoperative morbidity of two distinct surgical techniques of esophagectomy in esophageal cancer, transhiatal esophagectomy and video-assisted thoracoscopy in the prone position, analyzing intraoperative physiological parameters, scores on admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) (APACHE II, SOFA, and SAPS III), and postoperative evolution.
Retrospective, cross-sectional study evaluating patients admitted to the ICU in the immediate postoperative period of elective esophagectomy for esophageal neoplasia (squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma). Data were obtained from a computerized registry database of the ICU and from patient records.
Sixty-three patients over 18 years of age were evaluated and divided into two groups: 31 (49.21%) underwent transhiatal esophagectomy, and 32 (50.79%) underwent videoassisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy. No statistically significant difference was observed for length of ICU stay (p=0.5309), length of postoperative hospital stay (p=0.3066), or death in the perioperative period (30 days, p=0.6562). Regarding intraoperative parameters, no statistically significant difference was observed for patients who received blood transfusion (p=0.2097); amount in milliliters (p=0.2893); patients who used vasoactive drugs (VADs) (p=0.9243); time VAD use (p=0.9327); volume of fluids infused in milliliters (p=0.7825); or diuresis in milliliters (p=0.7286). A statistically significant difference was observed for surgical time (310 min in transhiatal esophagectomy vs. 373 min in video-assisted thoracoscopy, p=0.0012) and anesthetic time (385 minutes in transhiatal vs. 467 min in video-assisted thoracoscopy, p<0.0001). A statistically significant difference was observed in the number of patients extubated at the end of the procedure (48.38% in transhiatal vs. 9.37% in video-assisted thoracoscopy, p=0.0022). Regarding gasometric parameters at the end of the surgical procedure, only pO2 showed a statistically significant difference (p=0.0010). Regarding ICU admission scores, there were no differences regarding APACHE II (p=0.6542), SOFA (p=0.8949), and SAPS III (p=0.7656).
This study showed no differences between the transhiatal and thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position, in prognostic score performance, studied operative parameters, ICU stay and hospital stay times, and perioperative mortality, in agreement with literature findings. The advent of minimally invasive techniques in video-assisted esophagectomies brought the same benefits as thoracotomy, offering greater safety in mediastinal dissection under direct vision, in addition to mitigating the physiological repercussions of thoracotomies.
Developed by Surya MKT