Backgrounds COVID-19 related reduction of surgical procedures jeopardizes learning on the job of surgical residents. Many educators resorted to digital resources in the search for alternatives. However, these resources are often limited to the extent they offer resident-surgeon interaction like a joint surgical performance does. Here we present a roadmap of livestreaming surgical procedures, and evaluate how surgical livestreams on human cadavers address the unmet educational needs of surgical residents in our Dutch nationwide initiative. Methods Technical and organizational feasibility, and definition of outcome deliverables for the livestream series and per livestream were essential in livestream development. Faculty selected interventions, lecture contents, and participant preparations. Appropriate location, technical setup, and support were imperative for a stable, high-quality stream with integrated interaction, while maintaining digital privacy. A survey was sent to livestream participants to evaluate each livestream, and allow for constant improvement during the broadcasting of the series. Only surveys which were completed by surgical residents were included in the analysis of this study. Results Each livestream attracted 139–347 unique viewers and a total of 307 surveys were completed by participants (response rate of 23–38% per livestream). Sixty percent of surveys ( n = 185) were completed by surgical residents. Livestreams were highly valued (appreciation 7.7 ± 1.1 and recommendation 8.6 ± 1.1), especially the live procedures combined with interaction and theoretical backgrounds. Criticized were technical difficulties and timing of the livestreams between 5 and 7 pm, which interfered with clinical duties. Conclusion Livestreaming surgical procedures on human cadavers is a valid and valued solution to augment resident education. Digital privacy and a stable, high-quality interactive stream are essential, as are appropriate moderation and relevant lectures. While livestreaming cannot replace hands-on training in the operating room, it enables surgeon-resident interaction which is key in education—and missed in pre-recorded surgical procedures which are currently available online.

No abstract

4509 Background: Robust evidence is lacking whether Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) or McKeown MIE should be preferred for patients with mid to distal esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction Siewert I-II (GEJ) cancer. Methods: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, patients with esophageal (below the level of the carina) or GEJ cancer planned for curative resection were recruited. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either Ivor Lewis MIE or McKeown MIE. The primary endpoint was anastomotic leakage (AL) requiring endoscopic, radiologic or surgical intervention. Secondary outcome parameters were overall AL rate, postoperative complications, length of stay and mortality. Results: A total of 262 patients were randomly assigned to Ivor Lewis MIE (n = 130) or McKeown MIE (n = 132). Seventeen patients were excluded from the trial due to not meeting inclusion criteria (n = 2), physical unfitness for surgery (n = 3), patients’ choice (n = 3), interval metastases (n = 5) or peroperative metastases (n = 4). AL necessitating reintervention occurred in 15 (12.3%) of 122 patients after Ivor Lewis MIE and in 39 (31.7%) of 123 patients after McKeown MIE (relative risk 0.39, 95% CI 0.22-0.65; risk difference 19.4%, 95% CI 7.9%-31.8%). Overall AL rate was 12.3% after Ivor Lewis MIE and 34.1% after McKeown MIE. Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3b) were observed in 10.7% after Ivor Lewis MIE and in 22.0% after McKeown MIE. Pleural effusion requiring drainage occurred in 9.8% of patients after Ivor Lewis MIE and 21.1% of patients after McKeown MIE. RLN palsy rate was 0% after Ivor Lewis MIE and 7.3% after McKeown MIE. Median length of hospital stay was 10 days (IQR 8 – 15 days) after Ivor Lewis MIE and 12 days (IQR 9 – 18 days) after McKeown MIE. ICU length of stay and mortality rates were comparable between groups. Conclusions: These findings provide evidence for a lower rate of AL requiring reintervention after Ivor Lewis MIE compared to McKeown MIE for patients with mid to distal esophageal or GEJ cancer. Clinical trial information: NTR4333 .

Background Standard therapy for resectable oesophageal carcinoma is trimodality therapy (TMT) consisting of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and oesophagectomy. Evidence of survival advantage of TMT over organ preserving definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is inconclusive. The aim of this study is to compare survival between TMT and dCRT. Methods A systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies on primary resectable, curatively treated, oesophageal carcinoma patients above 18 years were included. Three online databases were searched for studies comparing TMT with dCRT. Primary outcomes were two-, three- and five-year overall survival rates. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools for RCTs and cohort studies. Results Thirty-two studies described in 35 articles were included in this systematic review, thirty-three were included in the meta-analyses. Two-, three- and five-year overall survival was significantly lower in dCRT compared to TMT, with relative risks (RR) of 0.69 (95%CI, 0.57–0.83), 0.76 (95%CI, 0.63–0.92), and 0.57 (95%CI, 0.47–0.71) respectively. However, when only analysing studies with equal patient groups at baseline no differences for two-, three- and five-year overall survival were found with RRs of 0.83 (95%CI, 0.62–1.10), 0.81 (95%CI 0.57–1.14), 0.63 (95%CI, 0.36–1.12). The forest plot for three-year overall survival is presented in figure 1. Figure 1. 3 year overall survival rates Conclusion Despite limitations of the available evidence these meta-analyses suggest there is no survival advantage for TMT over dCRT, assuming comparable groups at baseline. Selection of surgical candidates in oesophageal carcinoma should be part of personalised and tailored care. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Robust evidence is lacking whether Ivor Lewis minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) or McKeown MIE should be preferred for patients with mid to distal esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction Siewert I-II (GEJ) cancer. Methods In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, patients with esophageal (below the level of the carina) or GEJ cancer planned for curative resection were recruited. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either Ivor Lewis MIE or McKeown MIE. The primary endpoint was anastomotic leakage (AL) requiring endoscopic, radiologic or surgical intervention. Secondary outcome parameters were overall AL rate, postoperative complications, length of stay and mortality. Results A total of 262 patients were randomly assigned to Ivor Lewis MIE (n = 130) or McKeown MIE (n = 132). Seventeen patients were excluded due to not meeting inclusion criteria (n = 2), physical unfitness for surgery (n = 3), patients’ choice (n = 3), interval metastases (n = 5) or peroperative metastases (n = 4). AL necessitating reintervention occurred in 15 (12.3%) of 122 patients after Ivor Lewis MIE and in 39 (31.7%) of 123 patients after McKeown MIE (RR 0.39, 95%CI 0.22–0.65). Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3b) were observed in 10.7% after Ivor Lewis MIE and in 22.0% after McKeown MIE (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25–0.88). Conclusion This study provides evidence for a lower rate of AL requiring reintervention after Ivor Lewis MIE compared to McKeown MIE for patients with mid to distal esophageal or GEJ cancer.