Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: clinical outcomes for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma

A refined procedure for esophageal resection using a full minimally invasive approach

Objective

Newer minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy have brought substantial benefits to esophageal-cancer patients and continue to improve. We report here our experience with a streamlined procedure as part of a comprehensive perioperative-care program that provides additional advances in the continued evolution of this procedure.

Methods

All patients with primary esophageal cancer referred for resection to the Oakland Medical Center of the Kaiser-Permanente Northern California health plan who underwent this approach between January 2013 and August 2018 were included. Operative and clinical outcome variables were extracted from the electronic medical record, operating-room files, and manual chart review.

Results

142 patients underwent the new procedure and care program; 121 (85.2%) were men with mean age of 64.5 years. 127 (89.4%) were adenocarcinoma; 117 (82.4%) were clinical stage III or IVA. 115 (81.0%) required no jejunostomy. Median hospital length-of-stay was 3 days and 8 (5.6%) patients required admission to the intensive care unit. Postoperative complications occurred in 22 (15.5%) patients within 30 days of the procedure. There were no inpatient deaths; one patient (0.7%) died within 30 days following discharge and three additional deaths (2.1%) occurred through 90 days of follow-up.

Conclusions

This approach resulted in excellent clinical outcomes, including short hospital stays with limited need for the intensive care unit, few perioperative complications, and relatively few patients requiring feeding tubes on discharge. This comprehensive approach to esophagectomy is feasible and provides another clinically meaningful advance in the progress of minimally invasive esophagectomy. Further development and dissemination of this method is warranted.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13019-022-01765-2.

Comparative analysis of long-term oncologic outcomes for minimally invasive and open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation: a propensity score matched observational study

BACKGROUND

Locally advanced esophageal carcinoma is typically treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy (trimodality therapy). We compared the long-term oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (M-ILE) cohort with a propensity score weighted cohort of open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (O-ILE) cases after trimodality therapy.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of 223 patients diagnosed with esophageal carcinoma who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by M-ILE or O-ILE from April 2009 to February 2019. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjustment was used to balance the baseline characteristics between study groups. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were calculated for overall survival and recurrence-free survival comparing the two groups. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine predictive variables for overall and recurrence-free survival.

RESULTS

The IPTW cohort included patients with esophageal carcinoma who underwent M-ILE (n = 142) or O-ILE (n = 68). The overall rate of postoperative adverse events was not significantly different after IPTW adjustment between the O-ILE and M-ILE trimodality groups (53.4% vs. 39.2%, p = 0.089). The 3-year overall survival (OS) for the M-ILE group was 59.4% (95% CI: 49.8-67.8) compared to 55.7% (95% CI: 39.2-69.4) for the O-ILE group (p = 0.670). The 3-year recurrence-free survival for the M-ILE group was 59.9% (95% CI: 50.2-68.2) compared to 61.6% (95% CI: 41.9-76.3) for the O-ILE group (p = 0.357). A complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation was significantly predictive of improved OS and RFS.

CONCLUSION

The overall and recurrence-free survival rates for M-ILE were not significantly different from O-ILE for esophageal carcinoma after trimodality therapy. Complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation was predictive of improved overall and recurrence- free survival.

Minimal invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant treatments

Background

Although previous studies have discussed whether the minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open surgery, the data concerning esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients underwent neoadjuvant treatment followed by radical resection is limited. The purpose of our study was to compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the two surgical approaches in treating ESCC patients.

Methods

Between January 2010 and December 2016, ESCC patients who had received neoadjuvant therapy and underwent Mckeown esophagectomy at our institute were eligible. The baseline characteristics, pathological data, short-and long-term outcomes of these patients were collected and compared based on the surgical approach.

Results

A total of 195 patients was included in the current study. Compared to patients underwent open surgery, patients underwent MIE had shorter operative time and less intraoperative bleeding (390 min vs 330 min, P = 0.001; 204 ml vs 167 ml, P = 0.021). In addition, the risk of anastomotic leakage was decreased in MIE group (20.0% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001), while the occurrence of other complications did not have statistical significance between two groups. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) was no difference in patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy between the two approaches. For the patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, OS was significantly better in the MIE group (log rank = 6.197; P = 0.013).

Conclusion

Minimally invasive Mckeown esophagectomy is safe and feasible for ESCC patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. MIE approach presented better perioperative results than open esophagectomy. The effect of surgical approaches on survival was depending on the scheme of neoadjuvant treatment.

The assessment of intraoperative technique-related risk factors and the treatment of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy: a narrative review

Anastomotic leakage, including cervical anastomotic leakage and intrathoracic anastomotic leakage, is a serious complication of esophageal cancer and a leading cause of death after esophagectomy. In fact, anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy can be caused by numerous factors in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods. Intraoperative technique-related risk factors, including surgical methods, anastomosis sites, anastomosis methods, the type of gastric tube, and reconstruction routes, are the key causes of its occurrence. Anastomotic leakage treatments include both surgical and non-surgical treatments, while surgical treatment has high risks, many complications, and high mortality. Actually, non-surgical methods including naso-leakage drainage, stent, negative pressure therapy, and so on, are also very critical in the treatment of anastomotic leakage. So, the selection of correct and appropriate treatment methods plays an important role in alleviating the suffering of patients, shortening hospitalization time, and reducing mortality. This study undertook a systematic review in which data in the PubMed database were searched and analyzed to assess the safety and efficacy of surgical technique-related factors in esophagectomy, and appropriate treatment of anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy. In conclusion, gastric tube, posterior mediastinal route and stapled anastomosis are safe among esophagectomy surgical techniques, and non-surgical treatment of anastomotic leakage such as naso-leakage drainage is feasible in the majority of cases.

Minimally invasive techniques for transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oesophagectomy is a demanding operation that can be performed by different approaches including open surgery or a combination of minimal access techniques. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of open, minimally invasive and robotic oesophagectomy techniques for oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting open oesophagectomy, laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO), thoracoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (TAO), totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) or robotic MIO (RAMIO) for oesophagectomy. A network meta-analysis of intraoperative (operating time, blood loss), postoperative (overall complications, anastomotic leaks, chyle leak, duration of hospital stay) and oncological (R0 resection, lymphadenectomy) outcomes, and survival was performed.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight studies involving 32 315 patients were included in the network meta-analysis (open 17 824, 55·2 per cent; LAO 1576, 4·9 per cent; TAO 2421 7·5 per cent; MIO 9558, 29·6 per cent; RAMIO 917, 2·8 per cent). Compared with open oesophagectomy, both MIO and RAMIO were associated with less blood loss, significantly lower rates of pulmonary complications, shorter duration of stay and higher lymph node yield. There were no significant differences between surgical techniques in surgical-site infections, chyle leak, and 30- and 90-day mortality. MIO and RAMIO had better 1- and 5-year survival rates respectively compared with open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive and robotic techniques for oesophagectomy are associated with reduced perioperative morbidity and duration of hospital stay, with no compromise of oncological outcomes but no improvement in perioperative mortality.

Postoperative short-term outcomes of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to synthesize the available evidence regarding short‐term outcomes between minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE).

Methods

Studies were identified by searching databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library up to March 2019 without language restrictions. Results of these searches were filtered according to a set of eligibility criteria and analyzed in line with PRISMA guidelines.

Results

There were 33 studies included with a total of 13 269 patients in our review, out of which 4948 cases were of MIE and 8321 cases were of OE. The pooled results suggested that MIE had a better outcome regarding all‐cause respiratory complications (RCs) (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.41–0.78, P = <0.001), in‐hospital duration (SMD = −0.51; 95% CI = −0.78−0.24; P = <0.001), and blood loss (SMD = −1.44; 95% CI = −1.95−0.93; P = <0.001). OE was associated with shorter duration of operation time, while no statistically significant differences were observed regarding other outcomes. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed for a number of different postoperative events.

Conclusions

Our study indicated that MIE had more favorable outcomes than OE from the perspective of short‐term outcomes. Further large‐scale, multicenter randomized control trials are needed to explore the long‐term survival outcomes after MIE versus OE.

Preoperative esophageal stenting and short-term outcomes of surgery for esophageal cancer in a population-based study from Finland and Sweden

Population-based studies examining whether preoperative esophageal stenting influences the short-term outcomes after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer are lacking. This nationwide cohort combining data from Finland and Sweden was conducted to cover this gap. Patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer (T ≥ 3 and/or N ≥ 1, M0) who underwent esophagectomy between 2007 and 2014 were identified from nationwide registries in Finland and Sweden. The study exposure was preoperative stenting. The primary outcomes were 30- and 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay and 30- and 90-day readmission rates. Multivariable Cox and linear regression analyses provided hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, tumor histology, year of surgery, and country. Of all 1029 participating patients who underwent surgery for locally advanced esophageal cancer, 127 (12.3%) had an esophageal stent inserted preoperatively. The absolute 30-day mortality rates were higher in stented patients (3.9%) than in those without a stent (1.6%), but the HR was not statistically significantly increased (HR 2.42; 95% CI 0.85-6.92). Similarly, the absolute 90-day mortality rates were increased after preoperative stenting (11.8%) compared to no stenting (7.0%), but again the HR was not statistically significantly increased (HR 1.68; 95% CI 0.95-2.98). Preoperative stenting did not influence length of hospital stay or readmission rates. The possibly increased short-term mortality after preoperative stenting in patients who undergo esophagectomy for esophageal cancer indicated in this study suggests a cautious approach to preoperative stenting until future research or meta-analyses provide a more definite answer.

Siewert type I and II oesophageal adenocarcinoma: sensitivity/specificity of computed tomography, positron emission tomography and endoscopic ultrasound for assessment of lymph node metastases in groups of thoracic and abdominal lymph node stations

OBJECTIVES

In Siewert type I/II oesophageal adenocarcinoma, the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET)-CT and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for assessment of the N descriptor in defined groups of lymph nodes were investigated.

METHODS

CT, PET/CT, EUS images and the pathological data of 101 oesophageal adenocarcinomas submitted to primary resection were compared. The lymph nodes were identified as (a) right paratracheal/subcarinal/pulmonary ligament; (b) paraoesophageal; (c) paracardial; (d) left gastric artery, lesser curvature; (e) coeliac trunk, hepatic/splenic artery.

RESULTS

Of the 2451 lymph nodes identified, 273 (11.1%) were histologically positive. Overall sensitivity, specificity and negative and positive predictive value for detection of lymph nodes metastatic were respectively: CT sensitivity 39%, specificity 86%, negative 58% and positive 74% predictive value; PET/CT sensitivity 30%, specificity 98%, negative 58% and positive 93% predictive value; EUS sensitivity 50%, specificity 81%, negative 72% and positive 62% predictive value. The sensitivity of CT, PET/CT and EUS in the thoracic nodal groups (a) and (b) was, respectively, 58.3%, 7.1% and 87.5% and 33.3%, 20% and 80%. Sensitivity was below 47% for all tests in the abdominal nodal groups. In contrast, specificity (88.6-100%) was super imposable in all nodal groups. The strength of agreement among the 3 imaging techniques was poor (kappa < 0.30) for the thoracic anatomical groups of interest: (a) lower paratracheal/subcarinal/pulmonary ligament and (b) paraoesophageal; it was moderate/good (kappa >0.30) for the abdominal N groups of interest: c, d and e.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic performance of CT, PET and EUS for assessing the N descriptor in the paracardial and abdominal stations close to the primary tumour is not satisfactory. EUS can efficiently assess the presence/absence of nodal metastases in the thoracic stations.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT03529968.

Population-based study of anastomotic stricture rates after minimally invasive and open oesophagectomy for cancer

Background

The population‐based incidence of anastomotic stricture after minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) and open oesophagectomy (OO) is not known. The aim of this study was to compare rates of anastomotic stricture requiring dilatation after the two approaches in an unselected cohort using nationwide data from Finland and Sweden.

Methods

All patients who had MIO or OO for oesophageal cancer between 2007 and 2014 were identified from nationwide registries in Finland and Sweden. Outcomes were the overall rate of anastomotic stricture and need for single or repeated (3 or more) dilatations for stricture within the first year after surgery. Multivariable Cox regression provided hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals, adjusted for age, sex, co‐morbidity, histology, stage, year, country, hospital volume, length of hospital stay and readmissions.

Results

Some 239 patients underwent MIO and 1430 had an open procedure. The incidence of strictures requiring one dilatation was 16·7 per cent, and that for strictures requiring three or more dilatations was 6·6 per cent. The HR for strictures requiring one dilatation was not increased after MIO compared with that after OO (HR 1·19, 95 per cent c.i. 0·66 to 2·12), but was threefold higher for repeated dilatations (HR 3·25, 1·43 to 7·36). Of 18 strictures following MIO, 14 (78 per cent) occurred during the first 2 years after initiating this approach.

Conclusion

The need for endoscopic anastomotic dilatation after oesophagectomy was common, and the need for repeated dilatation was higher after MIO than following OO. The increased risk after MIO may reflect a learning curve.

Outcomes of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy for Cancer: A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis of NSQIP Database

INTRODUCTION

We conducted this analysis to compare the outcomes of open transthoracic esophagectomy (OTTE) and minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy (MITTE) when performed for oncologic indications.

METHODS

The NSQIP esophagectomy-targeted database during 2-year period was used. Only patients who underwent elective TTE for oncologic indications were included. Patients were matched per a propensity score for the likelihood of receiving OTTE versus MITTE.

RESULTS

Overall, 2098 esophagectomies were reported; 576 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 161 purely OTTE patients were matched 1:1 with patients who received purely MITTE. OTTE was associated with higher reported rates of abdominal and mediastinal lymphadenectomies (LAD) (26.7% vs. 3.1% and 38.5% vs. 16.1%, respectively; p < 0.001) and had shorter mean operative time (329 vs. 414 min; p < 0.001). However, OTTE patients had higher rates of wound infection (7.5% vs. 1.9%), longer median hospitalization (10 vs. 8 days), more non-home discharges (18.0 vs. 8.1%), and a tendency toward higher rates of postoperative transfusion (13.0% vs. 6.8%; p = 0.092). The overall complications rate was higher in OTTE (46.0% vs. 33.5%; p = 0.028). No difference was noted in the rates of anastomotic leak, negative margins, reoperation, readmission, or mortality. Laparoscopic versus robotic approaches were uniformly comparable, except for higher rates of reported abdominal LAD in laparoscopic and higher rates of reported mediastinal LAD in robotic approach.

CONCLUSIONS

MITTE is comparable to OTTE for oncologic indications in immediate postoperative outcomes. A concern is raised regarding the oncologic outcome given the lower reported rates of lymphadenectomies. Comparison of long-term outcomes is essential to address this concern.

Benchmark values for transthoracic esophagectomy are not set as the defined "best possible"-a validation study

Background

Recently, benchmark values for low-comorbidity patients at high-volume centers were set to define "best achievable results" for transthoracic minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). We aimed to validate suggested benchmark values by comparing them to outcomes at a medium-volume center in Finland.

Methods

All MIEs (n=82) performed at Central Finland Central Hospital between September 2012 and November 2017 including 75 totally MIE and 7 hybrid procedures. The aim of the study was to compare the results to previously suggested benchmark parameters for postoperative morbidity measured with the Clavien-Dindo classification and comprehensive complication index. Target benchmark parameters were ≤55.7% for any complications, ≤30.8% for major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3a), ≤40.8% for 30-day and ≤42.8% for 90-day comprehensive complication index, ≤20% for anastomosis leak, ≤31.6% for pulmonary complications, ≤1.0% for 30-day mortality and ≤4.6% for 90-day mortality.

Results

Compared with benchmark patients, our patients were older (median 68 vs. 58 years), with more comorbidities. All parameters measuring complications showed better results in our study than benchmark values. Median intensive care unit stay of 1 (IQR, 1-1) and hospital stay of 9 (IQR, 9-12) days were also shorter. At least 1 complication developed in 45.1%, and 6.1% faced major morbidity. Median (IQR) comprehensive complication index for both 30 and 90 days was 0 (IQR, 0-20.9 days). Anastomosis leak and pulmonary complications were observed in 3.7% and 22.0%, respectively. The 30- and 90-day mortality was 1.2% (1/82).

Conclusions

Benchmark values assessing postoperative morbidity after MIE do not represent the defined "best achievable" results after completed learning curves.

Transhiatal vs. Transthoracic Esophagectomy: A NSQIP Analysis of Postoperative Outcomes and Risk Factors for Morbidity

BACKGROUND

Both transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) and transthoracic esophagectomy (TTE) are accepted procedures for esophageal resection. We aimed to compare postoperative outcomes between these procedures and identify risk factors for morbidity.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Adult patients who underwent THE or TTE between 2005 and 2014 were included. Postoperative morbidity, length of stay, and 30-day mortality were compared. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine risk factors for complications, and likelihood ratio tests were used to assess whether the effect of each risk factor was different across THE and TTE.

RESULTS

A total of 4053 patients were included, 2362 (58.3%) underwent TTE and 1691 (41.7%) underwent THE. TTE was associated with higher incidences of postoperative pneumonia and bleeding requiring transfusion. THE had higher incidences of superficial wound infection, deep wound infection, urinary tract infection, and sepsis. There were no significant differences in occurrence of anastomotic leak (THE 7.6% vs. TTE 9.4%, p = 0.35) or 30-day mortality (THE 2.3% vs. TTE 2.5%, p = 0.63). Female gender, black race, hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, partially or fully dependent functional status, and an ASA score ≥ 3 were independently associated with postoperative complications. The impact of the risk factors on morbidity was similar across both procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

THE and TTE have similar incidence of anastomotic leak and 30-day mortality. The impact of gender, race, and patients' comorbidities on postoperative complications is similar across both types of esophagectomy.

Short-Term Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive and Open Esophagectomy: A Population-Based Study from Finland and Sweden

BACKGROUND

Population-based studies comparing minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) relative to 90-day postoperative mortality are needed.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes following these two techniques for esophageal cancer.

METHODS

Patients undergoing MIE (n = 217) or OE (n = 1397) for esophageal cancer between 2007 and 2014 were identified from nationwide complete registries in Finland and Sweden. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality, and secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and 30- and 90-day readmission rate. Results were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, tumor histology, surgery year, and country.

RESULTS

Ninety-day mortality rates were 4.1% (n = 9 of 217) for MIE and 6.8% (n = 95 of 1397) for OE; 90-day mortality was halved after MIE [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.99]. There was no difference in 30-day mortality (adjusted HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.29-2.66). Median hospital stay was 15 days for MIE and 16 days for OE (adjusted β -0.17, standard error 0.08, p = 0.030). The 30-day readmission rates were 8.9% after MIE and 12.0% after OE (adjusted HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34-0.94), while the 90-day readmission rates were 28.8% and 33.6%, respectively, without a statistically significant difference (adjusted HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61-1.10).

CONCLUSIONS

This population-based study from Finland and Sweden revealed lower 90-day mortality, shorter hospital stay, and lower 30-day readmission rates after MIE compared with OE for esophageal cancer. These findings support the use of minimally invasive approaches.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is a safe surgical treatment for locally advanced pathologic T3 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Background

Previous studies have shown that minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is safe and feasible. However, several of these studies had selection bias because they included more patients with early-stage cancer, and no study has compared the outcomes of locally advanced pathologic T3 (pT3) esophageal carcinoma between MIE and open surgery.

Methods

This retrospective analysis included 229 patients with stage pT3 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) who underwent esophagectomy from January 2013 to June 2015. The outcomes included operative outcomes, postoperative complications, recurrence, and mid-term survival.

Results

Sixty-six patients underwent MIE and 163 patients underwent open surgery. No significant difference was noted in blood loss or resection completeness (R0) between the two groups. The operative duration was longer in the MIE than open surgery group (266.5±52.5 vs. 218.1±47.4, P<0.01), and the number of lymph nodes dissected was higher in the MIE than open surgery group (15.2±5.3 vs. 12.9±7.3, P=0.01). There was no significant difference in the length of stay or 30-day mortality rate between the two groups, but the intensive care unit stay was shorter in the MIE group (3 vs. 4, P=0.01). No difference in complications or recurrence was noted between the two groups. The 2-year overall survival (OS) rate was 72.8% for MIE and 69.4% for open surgery, and the 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 69.4% for MIE and 57.2% for open surgery.

Conclusions

For patients with locally advanced stage pT3 ESCC, MIE has perioperative outcomes comparable to those of open surgery without compromising recurrence or survival.

Morbidity analysis in minimally invasive esophagectomy for oesophageal cancer versus conventional over the last 10 years, a single institution experience

BACKGROUND

There has been an increasing inclination towards minimally invasive esophagectomies (MIEs) at our institute recently for resectable oesophageal cancer.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the present study is to report peri-operative and long-term procedure specific outcomes of the two groups and analyse their changing pattern at our institute.

METHODS

All adult patients with a diagnosis of oesophageal cancer managed at our institute from 2005 to 2015 were included in this retrospective study. Patients' demographic and clinical characteristics were recorded through our hospital information system. The cohort of esophagectomies was allocated into two groups, conventional open esophagectomy (OE) or total laparoscopic MIE; hybrid esophagectomies were taken as a separate group. The short-term outcome measures are an operative time in minutes, length of hospital and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay in days, post-operative complications and 30 days in-hospital mortality. Complications are graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Long-term outcomes are long-term procedure related complications over a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Trends were analysed by visually inspecting the graphic plots for mean number of events in each group each year.

RESULTS

Our results showed no difference in mortality, length of hospital and ICU stays and incidence of major complications between three groups on uni- and multi-variate analysis (P > 0.05). The operative time was significantly longer in MIE group (odds ratio [OR]: 1.66, confidence interval [CI]: 2.4-11.5). The incidence of long-term complication was low for MIE (OR: 1.0, CI: 133-1.017). However, all post-operative surgical outcomes trended to improve in both groups over the course of this study and stayed better for MIE group except for the operative time.

CONCLUSION

MIE has overall comparable surgical outcomes to its conventional counterpart. Furthermore, the peri-operative outcomes tend to improve in our centre with the maturation of program and experience.

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

Background

Open esophagectomy (OE) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) reduces complications in resectable esophageal cancer. The aim of this study is to explore the superiority of MIO in reducing complications and in-hospital mortality than OE.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Wanfang, and Wiley Online Library were thoroughly searched. Odds ratio (OR)/weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess the strength of association.

Results

Fifty-seven studies containing 15,790 cases of resectable esophageal cancer were included. MIO had less intraoperative blood loss, short hospital stay, and high operative time (P < 0.05) than OE. MIO also had reduced incidence of total complications; (OR = 0.700, 95% CI = 0.626 ~ 0.781, P_V < 0.05), pulmonary complications (OR = 0.527, 95% CI = 0431 ~ 0.645, P_V < 0.05), cardiovascular complications (OR = 0.770, 95% CI = 0.681 ~ 0.872, P_V < 0.05), and surgical technology related (STR) complications (OR = 0.639, 95% CI = 0.522 ~ 0.781, P_V < 0.05), as well as lower in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.668, 95% CI = 0.539 ~ 0.827, P_V < 0.05). However, the number of harvested lymph nodes, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, gastrointestinal complications, anastomotic leak (AL), and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (RLNP) had no significant difference.

Conclusions

MIO is superior to OE in terms of perioperative complications and in-hospital mortality.

Changes in oncological outcomes: comparison of the conventional and minimally invasive esophagectomy, a single institution experience

Minimally invasive esophagectomy is becoming the routine procedure for resectable esophageal cancer. The aim of this retrospective study is to analyze the oncologic adequacy of these two procedures at our Centre. Out of 1252 registered esophageal cancer patients at our institute from 2006 to 2015, 206 patients who underwent a surgical resection with curative intent and a complete medical record were retrospectively evaluated thru hospital medical record system (HIS). Patients were allocated into the conventional open OE, and minimally invasive MIE and Hybrid esophagectomy groups. Primary outcomes are tumor recurrence and disease-free survival over a minimum follow-up of 1 year along with assessment of adequacy of pathological specimen in terms of lymph nodes harvested and clear longitudinal <1 cm and circumferential (≥1 mm) resection margins for patients with post-neo-adjuvant residual disease. Secondary endpoint is to look for trends in the adequacy of oncologic clearance in each group over the study period. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) between groups (OE vs. MIE vs. Hybrid) for median number of lymph nodes retrieved (13 vs.14 vs.15), resection margin positive disease (55.8 vs. 35.7 vs. 44 % of patients with any residual disease N = 103,50 %), or tumor recurrence (45.2 vs. 37.3 vs. 25 %). Disease-free survival over a mean follow-up of 2.3 years was higher in the conventional group (13.8 months vs. 9.7MIE and 11.8hybrid) without any statistical significance. Learning curve for MIE to achieve a comparable mean lymph nodes harvest to OE was 1 year, while pathological complete resection stayed persistently better with minimally invasive approach. Minimally invasive esophagectomy is found to be oncologically adequate and gives results matching their conventional analogue with an increasing experience.

Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Compared with open esophagectomy (OE), minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) proves to have clear benefits in reducing the risk of pulmonary complications for patients with resectable esophageal cancer. The objectives of our study were to explore the superiority of MIE in reducing the occurrence of anastomotic leakages (ALs) when compared to OE.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the superiority of MIE on the occurrence of ALs over OE, by searching many sources (through December, 2014) such as Medline, Embase, Wiley Online Library, and Cochrane Library. Fixed-effects model was used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) to quantify associations between OE and MIE groups. Cochran’s Q and I² statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity among studies.

Results

Among a total of 43 studies involving 5537 patients included in the meta-analysis, 2527 (45.6 %) cases underwent MIE and 3010 (54.4 %) cases underwent OE. Compared to patients undergoing OE, patients undergoing MIE did not have statistical significance in reduced occurrence of ALs (OR = 0.97, 95 % CI = 0.80–1.17). Insignificant reduced occurrence of ALs was not associated with anastomotic location (OR = 0.90, 95 % CI = 0.71–1.13) or anastomotic procedure (OR = 1.02, 95 % CI = 0.79–1.30).

Conclusions

More proofs are needed to clarify the strengths or weaknesses of MIE in preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer. A largely randomized, controlled trial should be undertaken to resolve this contentious issue urgently.

Superiority of Minimally Invasive Oesophagectomy in Reducing In-Hospital Mortality of Patients with Resectable Oesophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Compared with open oesophagectomy (OE), minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) proves to have benefits in reducing the risk of pulmonary complications for patients with resectable oesophageal cancer. However, it is unknown whether MIO has superiority in reducing the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM).

Objective

The objective of this meta-analysis was to explore the effect of MIO vs. OE on the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM).

Data Sources

Sources such as Medline (through December 31, 2014), Embase (through December 31, 2014), Wiley Online Library (through December 31, 2014), and the Cochrane Library (through December 31, 2014) were searched.

Study Selection

Data of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials related to MIO versus OE were included.

Interventions

Eligible studies were those that reported patients who underwent MIO procedure. The control group included patients undergoing conventional OE.

Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods

Fixed or random -effects models were used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) or relative risks (RRs) for quantification of associations. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated by using Cochran’s Q and I² statistics.

Results

A total of 48 studies involving 14,311 cases of resectable oesophageal cancer were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to patients undergoing OE, patients undergoing MIO had statistically reduced occurrence of IHM (OR=0.69, 95%CI =0.55 -0.86). Patients undergoing MIO also had significantly reduced incidence of pulmonary complications (PCs) (RR=0.73, 95%CI = 0.63-0.86), pulmonary embolism (PE) (OR=0.71, 95%CI= 0.51-0.99) and arrhythmia (OR=0.79, 95%CI = 0.68-0.92). Non-significant reductions were observed among the included studies in the occurrence of anastomotic leak (AL) (OR=0.93, 95%CI =0.78-1.11), or Gastric Tip Necrosis (GTN) (OR=0.89, 95%CI =0.54-1.49).

Limitation

Most of the included studies were non-randomized case-control studies, with a diversity of study designs, demographics of participants and surgical intervention.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) has superiority over open oesophagectomy (OE) in terms of the occurrence of in-hospital mortality (IHM) and should be the first-choice surgical procedure in esophageal surgery.