Oesophageal carcinoma is a serious condition that often requires surgical intervention in the form of oesophageal resection. There are two commonly used techniques for this procedure: transhiatal oesophagectomy (THO) and Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy (ILO). A research article published on PubMed aimed to compare the morbidity, 30-day mortality, and long-term survival between these two techniques in the treatment of oesophageal carcinoma. Additionally, the study sought to provide data to calculate the sample sizes required for a prospective randomized trial. Let’s delve into the details of this research and explore the implications of its findings.
What are the two techniques used for oesophageal resection for carcinoma?
The two surgical techniques compared in this study are transhiatal oesophagectomy (THO) and Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy (ILO). Both procedures aim to remove the cancerous tissue from the oesophagus, but they differ in their approach and anatomical dissection.
In transhiatal oesophagectomy (THO), the surgeon removes the tumorous portion of the oesophagus and any affected lymph nodes through an incision in the abdomen. This approach avoids the need for a thoracotomy and can be less invasive for patients.
On the other hand, Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy (ILO) involves a combination of abdominal and thoracic incisions. The surgeon removes the affected portion of the oesophagus and lymph nodes through an abdominal incision and then creates an anastomosis (connection) between the remaining oesophagus and the stomach in the chest cavity.
What were the results of the comparison between transhiatal and Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy?
The study compared 44 series published between January 1986 and December 1996, involving a total of 5,483 patients (2,675 patients undergoing THO and 2,808 patients undergoing ILO). The age, sex, and stage of disease were found to be comparable between the two groups.
The researchers found that there was no significant difference in postoperative morbidity between transhiatal and Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy. The two groups exhibited similar rates of respiratory complications (24% for THO, 25% for ILO), cardiovascular complications (12.4% for THO, 10.5% for ILO), wound infection (8.8% for THO, 6.2% for ILO), and chylothorax (2.1% for THO, 3.4% for ILO).
However, there were some notable differences between the two techniques. Transhiatal oesophagectomy had a higher incidence of anastomotic leaks (16% for THO, 10% for ILO), anastomotic strictures (28% for THO, 16% for ILO), and recurrent laryngeal nerve injuries (11.2% for THO, 4.8% for ILO). On the other hand, Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy had a higher 30-day mortality rate compared to transhiatal oesophagectomy (9.5% for ILO, 6.3% for THO).
Long-term survival at 5 years was found to be similar between the two techniques, with a survival rate of 24% for THO and 26% for ILO. This suggests that the surgical approach to oesophagectomy is not the most influential factor in determining long-term survival for patients with oesophageal carcinoma.
How does the morbidity compare between the two techniques?
The morbidity between transhiatal and Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy was found to be comparable in most aspects. Both techniques showed similar rates of respiratory complications, cardiovascular complications, wound infections, and chylothorax.
However, there were some differences in specific types of complications. Transhiatal oesophagectomy had a higher incidence of anastomotic leaks, anastomotic strictures, and recurrent laryngeal nerve injuries compared to Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy.
This information is crucial for surgeons and patients in determining the most suitable surgical approach based on the likelihood of specific complications. For example, a patient with a higher risk of anastomotic leaks may be better suited for Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy.
What is the long-term survival rate for patients undergoing oesophagectomy?
The study found that the long-term survival rate at 5 years for patients undergoing oesophagectomy was similar between the transhiatal and Ivor-Lewis techniques. The survival rate was 24% for THO and 26% for ILO.
This suggests that the choice of surgical technique does not significantly impact long-term survival for patients with oesophageal carcinoma. Other factors, such as patient characteristics, tumor stage, and adjuvant therapies, may play a more influential role in determining survival outcomes.
How many patients would be needed for a prospective randomized trial to detect a significant difference in morbidity and long-term survival?
To detect a significant difference in morbidity or long-term survival between transhiatal and Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy in a prospective randomized trial, the study suggests that 3,100 patients would be required in each arm of the trial.
This sample size calculation highlights the challenge of conducting large-scale randomized trials in surgical oncology. The sheer number of patients needed emphasizes the importance of pooling data from multiple studies, as done in this comparative analysis, to draw meaningful conclusions about the efficacy and safety of different surgical approaches.
Implications of the Research
This research article comparing transhiatal and Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy provides valuable insights for clinicians and patients facing the challenging decision of selecting the most appropriate surgical technique for oesophageal resection in cases of carcinoma.
The findings of comparable morbidity rates suggest that both techniques are generally safe and effective. However, the differing rates of specific complications, such as anastomotic leaks and recurrent laryngeal nerve injuries, should be carefully considered when choosing the surgical approach. Surgeons can use this information to tailor their approach based on individual patient characteristics and risk factors for specific complications.
Furthermore, the study’s sample size calculation emphasizes the need for collaborative and multicenter efforts to gather sufficient data for meaningful analysis. Prospective randomized trials with such large sample sizes are challenging to conduct, and pooling data from multiple studies improves the statistical power and generalizability of the findings.
By advancing our understanding of the two surgical techniques and their outcomes in the treatment of oesophageal carcinoma, this research contributes to evidence-based decision-making and improves patient care.
Source article: Transhiatal versus Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy: is there a difference? – PubMed
Leave a Reply