Document Type : Brief Report(s)

Authors

• Evgeny Toneev ^{1, 2}
• Oleg Aleksandrov ³
• Oleg Pikin ⁴
• Lyudmila Danilova ⁵
• Oleg Midlenko ⁵
• Vladimir Midlenko ⁶
• Andrey Chavga ⁷

¹ State Healthcare Institution Regional Clinical Oncology Center, Ulyanovsk State University, Ulyanovsk, Russia

² Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine named after T.Z. Biktimirova, Institute of Medicine, Ecology and Physical Culture, Ulyanovsk State University, Ulyanovsk, Russia

³ National Medical Research Center of Phthisiopulmonology, P.A. Hertzen Moscow Oncology Research Institute, Branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow, Russia

⁴ P.A. Hertzen Moscow Oncology Research Institute, Branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow, Russia

⁵ State Healthcare Institution, Regional Clinical Oncology Center, Ulyanovsk, Ulyanovsk, Russia

⁶ Department of Hospital Surgery, Ulyanovsk State University, Ulyanovsk, Russia

⁷ Anesthesiology, Resuscitation, Urology, Traumatology and Orthopedics, Ulyanovsk State University, Ulyanovsk, Russia

Abstract

Surgery is pivotal in treating esophageal cancer; hybrid esophagectomy, which combines minimally invasive and open techniques, shows promising outcomes. This historical cohort study compared the surgical outcomes of standard open esophagectomy with hybrid esophagectomy. Overall, 58 patients who underwent either hybrid or open esophagectomy at the Ulyanovsk Regional Clinical Oncology Clinic, Russia, from January 2015 to December 2023 were included. Data on demographics, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. The primary measures were overall complications and anastomotic leakage rates. Statistical analysis was performed using Pearson’s Chi square test and t test via StatTech software (version 2.8.8). The number of removed lymph nodes was higher in the hybrid group (24±9) than in the open group (15±7) (P<0.001). In addition, the hybrid esophagectomy group showed significant reductions in operational time and blood loss (P<0.001 and P=0.014, respectively). The need for blood transfusion was higher in the open esophagectomy group (P=0.043). The postoperative length of stay in the hospital did not differ significantly between the two groups (open=20±8 days, hybrid=17±7 days, P=0.178). Cardiac complications were more frequent after an open esophagectomy (P=0.044). Hybrid esophagectomy reduced postoperative cardiac complications and other adverse events while maintaining satisfactory oncological outcomes. It had advantages over standard open esophagectomy in terms of lymphadenectomy, operative time, blood loss, and transfusion requirements, suggesting its efficacy for esophageal cancer patients.

Keywords

• Esophageal neoplasms
• Esophagectomy
• Postoperative complications