Video
- Video 1
Step 1. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 2
Step 2. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 3
Step 3. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 4
Step 4. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 5
Step 5. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 6
Step 6. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 7
Step 7. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 8
Step 8. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 9
Step 9. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 10
Step 10. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.

Feature Editor's Introduction—It is reasonable to submit that esophagectomy is one of the most complex, unforgiving procedures in surgery. Recent analyses of the National Cancer Database have demonstrated that the number of minimally invasive esophagectomies performed in the United States had surpassed the number of open esophagectomies by 2015. This should be considered as a trailblazing accomplishment by early pioneers in our field that drove this innovation and as a testament to the perseverance and skill of contemporary thoracic surgeons who treat patients with cancer and other ailments of the esophagus. Moreover, our surgeons stood up to investigate this new, potentially high-risk procedure scientifically. Two multicenter randomized trials, TIME (Traditional Invasive Vs Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy) and MIRO (Open Versus Laparoscopically Assisted Esophagectomy for Cancer: A Multicentric Phase III Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial), were reported in the last decade and demonstrated that minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy were associated with decreased surgical morbidity when compared with open esophagectomy without sacrificing oncologic outcomes, including extent of nodal dissection, R0 resection status, and disease-free survival. In the Video Atlas article that follows, the authors distill an intricate, bicavitary minimally invasive operation into the 10 dominant steps that make up the laparoscopic and thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
Bryan M. Burt, MD
Methods
Trocar Placement—Abdomen (Figure 1)
- 1.10-mm optical trocar for entry—left costal margin at midclavicular line
- a.Assistant port
- b.Used to staple left gastric artery/vein
- a.
- 2.5- or 10-mm trocar for camera—midline below falciform ligament
- a.Camera holder can be used if there is no physician assistant/student/resident
- a.
- 3.2 additional 5-mm trocars—right and left upper quadrants
- a.Surgeon port—right side
- b.Assistant port—left side
- a.
- 4.10-mm trocar—right flank
- a.Surgeon port
- b.Used for tubularization of the stomach
- a.
- 5.Nathanson liver retractor—below xiphoid process

Port Placement—Chest (Figure 2)
- 1.10-mm port—posterior axillary line in seventh intercostal space (will be replaced by wound protector)
- a.Surgeon port
- b.Used to staple the azygous vein
- c.Used to staple the stomach when the conduit is divided from the specimen
- d.End-to-end anastomosis (EEA) goes through the wound protector
- a.
- 2.5-mm camera port—posteriorly to 10-mm port in ninth intercostal space
- a.The camera is moved here from trocar #1 after entry and insufflation
- a.
- 3.10-mm port—midaxillary line in the third or fourth intercostal space
- a.Surgeon port
- b.Used to staple the esophagus
- a.
- 4.5-mm port—seventh intercostal space between spine and scapula
- a.Assistant port
- a.

Instruments
- 1.OrVil 25-mm 4.8-mm stapler
- 2.Endovascular staplers
- 3.Carter-Thomason fascial closure device
- 4.Thoracoscopic specimen bag
- 5.LigaSure
- 6.Endo Stitch
Results
Abdomen
Lymphadenectomy of the celiac trunk and division of the left gastric pedicle
Mobilization of the greater curvature
Transhiatal dissection
Creation of the conduit
Feeding tube placement
Thoracic Phase
Opening of the anterior and posterior pleura and division of the azygous vein
Circumferential mobilization of the esophagus, identification of airways, and division of the esophagus
Gastric conduit pullup, division of the specimen, pathological assessment of margin, and mediastinal lymphadenectomy
Passage of the OrVil and assessment of conduit perfusion
Anastomosis
Postoperative Course
Conclusions
Supplementary Data
- Video 1
Step 1. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 1
Step 1. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 2
Step 2. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 2
Step 2. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 3
Step 3. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 3
Step 3. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 4
Step 4. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 4
Step 4. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 5
Step 5. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 5
Step 5. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 6
Step 6. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 6
Step 6. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 7
Step 7. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 7
Step 7. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 8
Step 8. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 8
Step 8. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 9
Step 9. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 9
Step 9. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 10
Step 10. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
- Video 10
Step 10. Video available at: https://www.jtcvs.org/article/S2666-2507(21)00515-0/fulltext.
References
- Traditional invasive vs minimally invasive esophagectomy: a multi-center, randomized trial (TIME trial).BMC Surg. 2011; 11: 2
- Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients.Ann Surg. 2012; 256: 95-103
- Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy: meta-analysis of outcomes.Dig Dis Sci. 2010; 55: 3031-3040
- Evidence to support use of minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis.Arch Surg. 2012; 147: 768-776
- Minimally invasive esophagectomy provides equivalent oncologic outcomes to open esophagectomy for locally advanced (stage II or III) esophageal carcinoma.Arch Surg. 2011; 146: 711-714
- Does pyloric drainage have a role in the era of minimally invasive esophagectomy?.Surg Endosc. 2019; 33: 3218-3227
Article info
Publication history
Footnotes
This study was supported, in part, by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Support Grant P30 CA008748.
Disclosures: D.M. serves as a consultant for Johnson & Johnson, Urogen, and Boston Scientific. C.H. reported no conflicts of interest.
The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest.
Identification
Copyright
User license
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) |
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article (private use only, not for distribution)
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
Not Permitted
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
- Distribute translations or adaptations of the article
Elsevier's open access license policy
ScienceDirect
Access this article on ScienceDirectLinked Article
- Commentary: Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: Unless you have tried it, don't knock it!JTCVS TechniquesVol. 10
- PreviewThe evolution of esophageal resection and reconstruction techniques has been “the tale of men repeatedly losing to a stronger adversary yet persisting in an unequal struggle until the nature of the problem became apparent and the war was won.”1 While attempting to reduce the risk of significant morbidity and mortality while maximizing quality of life and long-term survival, the refinement of esophagectomy approaches has also required tenacity on the part of pioneering surgeons to persevere in the face of harsh criticism, such as Dr Alton Oschner's colorful condemnation of Dr Mark Orringer's early transhiatal esophagectomy series presented at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery 58th Annual Meeting, to which Dr Griffith Pearson replied, “Unless you have tried [it], don't knock it! ”2,3 Throughout their evolution over the last 30 years, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) techniques have been similarly disparaged.
- Full-Text
- Preview