Feasibility of enhanced recovery protocol in minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy

• Published in: Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society 2021-07, Vol.18 (3), p.537-547
• Main Authors: Tanishima, Yuichiro, Nishikawa, Katsunori, Yuda, Masami, Ishikawa, Yoshitaka, Takahashi, Keita, Tanaka, Yujiro, Matsumoto, Akira, Yano, Fumiaki, Mitsumori, Norio, Ikegami, Toru
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Cancer surgery; Esophageal cancer; Esophageal Neoplasms - complications; Esophageal Neoplasms - surgery; Esophagectomy - adverse effects; Esophagectomy - methods; Esophagus; Feasibility Studies; Gastroenterology; Gastrointestinal surgery; Humans; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Nutritional status; Original; Original Article; Postoperative Complications - etiology; Postoperative period; Propensity Score; Recovery (Medical); Surgical Oncology; Thoracic Surgery
• ISSN: 1612-9059; 1612-9067
• DOI: 10.1007/s10388-021-00823-3

Background Implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery has generally been applied to gastrointestinal surgeries; however, few studies have investigated minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of an enhanced recovery protocol after minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy. Methods Data were collected between January 2015 and April 2020 for patients who underwent esophagectomy. Of these patients, those who underwent minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy was selected for the investigation. Perioperative outcomes and nutritional index were compared using propensity score matching between the conventional group and the enhanced recovery group. Results A total of 119 patients were enrolled in this study. Of these, 73 and 46 were treated with conventional and enhanced recovery protocol, respectively. Forty-two pairs were matched in two groups. The enhanced recovery group showed a lower rate of pulmonary complications (9.5% vs. 28.5%, p  = 0.0235), abdominal dysfunctions (16.7% vs. 42.9%, p  = 0.0078), and shorter hospital stay as compared with the conventional group (17.5 days vs. 23 days, p  = 0.0034). The loss of body weight (6.3% vs. 7.7%, p  = 0.0065) and body mass index (5.6% vs. 8.1%, p  = 0.0017) were significantly lower in the enhanced recovery group than in the conventional group. In contrast, nutritional biochemistry data did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusions This study shows that the promotion of an enhanced recovery protocol in minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy maintains nutritional status without increasing postoperative complications.