Background: The global shift from open esophagectomy (OE) to minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for treating esophageal cancer is well-established. Recent data indicate that transitioning from hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (hMIE) to total minimally invasive esophagectomy (tMIE) can be challenging due to concerns about higher leakage rates and lower lymph node counts, especially at the beginning of the learning curve. This study aimed to demonstrate that a safe transition from OE to tMIE for cancer is possible using process management methodology. Methods: A step-change approach was adopted in process management planning, with hMIE serving as an intermediate step between OE and tMIE. This single-center, case–control study included 150 patients who underwent the Ivor Lewis procedure with curative intent for esophageal cancer. Among these patients, 50 underwent OE, 50 hMIE (laparoscopic procedure followed by conventional right thoracotomy), and 50 tMIE (laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approach). A preceptored training scheme was implemented during execution, and treatment results were monitored and controlled to ensure a safe transition. Results: During the transition, the tMIE group was not worse than the hMIE and OE groups regarding operation duration (p = 0.135), overall postoperative complications (p = 0.020), anastomotic leakage rates (p = 0.773), 30-day mortality (p = 1.0), and oncological outcomes (based on R status (p = 0.628) and 2-year survival (p = 0.967)). Additionally, the tMIE group showed superior results in terms of major postoperative pulmonary complications (p = 0.004) and ICU stay duration (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Utilizing managerial methodology and practice in surgery, as a bridge between interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches, demonstrated that transitioning from OE to tMIE, with hMIE as an intermediate step, is safe and feasible without compromising outcomes.

Background: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol for esophagectomy may reduce the high incidence of postoperative morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of properly conducted ERAS protocol with specific emphasis on fluid balance and opioid-sparing anesthesia (OSA) on postoperative major morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy.Methods: Patients undergoing elective esophagectomy for esophageal cancer at the Hospital for Digestive Surgery, University Clinical Center of Serbia, from December 2017 to March 2021, were included in this retrospective observational study. Patients were divided into two groups: the ERAS group (OSA, intraoperative goal-directed therapy, and postoperative “near-zero” fluid balance) and the control group (opioid-based anesthesia, maintenance mean blood pressure ≥ 65 mmHg, and liberal postoperative fluid management). The primary outcome was major morbidity within 30 days from surgery and 30-day and 90-day mortality. Multivariable analysis was used to examine the effect of the ERAS protocol.Results: A total of 121 patients were divided into the ERAS group (69 patients) and the control group (52 patients). Patients in the ERAS group was received less fentanyl, median 300 (interquartile range (IQR), 200–1,550) mcg than in control group, median 1,100 (IQR, 650–1750) mcg, p < 0.001. Median intraoperative total infusion was lower in the ERAS group, 2000 (IQR, 1000–3,750) mL compared to control group, 3,500 (IQR, 2000–5,500) mL, p < 0.001. However, intraoperative norepinephrine infusion was more administered in the ERAS group (52.2% vs. 7.7%, p < 0.001). On postoperative day 1, median cumulative fluid balance was 2,215 (IQR, −150-5880) mL in the ERAS group vs. 4692.5 (IQR, 1770–10,060) mL in the control group, p = 0.002. After the implementation of the ERAS protocol, major morbidity was less frequent in the ERAS group than in the control group (18.8% vs. 75%, p < 0.001). There was no statistical significant difference in 30-day and 90-day mortality (p = 0.07 and p = 0.119, respectively). The probability of postoperative major morbidity and interstitial pulmonary edema were higher in control group (OR 5.637; CI95%:1.178–10.98; p = 0.030 and OR 5.955; CI95% 1.702–9.084; p < 0.001, respectively).Conclusion: A major morbidity and interstitial pulmonary edema after esophagectomy were decreased after the implementation of the ERAS protocol, without impact on overall mortality.

Semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, is widely used to reduce appetite and promote weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, individual variability may lead to paradoxical responses. We describe a 60-year-old woman with type 2 diabetes who experienced progressive weight gain and increased appetite during 12 months of semaglutide therapy, despite previous successful weight loss with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Her body mass index (BMI) rose from 31.6 to 34.6 kg/m², accompanied by worsening glycemic control. Eating behavior assessment with the Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire revealed a maximum score for emotional eating, suggesting a strong psychological barrier to treatment efficacy. Genetic factors, such as GLP-1 receptor polymorphisms, may also contribute to reduced responsiveness. This case highlights the possible influence of both emotional and genetic factors on treatment outcomes and emphasizes the need for personalized approaches in the management of obesity and type 2 diabetes.