Matched-pair comparisons of minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

A Comparative Study between the Postoperative Complications of Stripping Esophagectomy and Classic (Orringer's Technique) Esophagectomy

Recent studies have suggested that morbidity and mortality rate of transhiatal esophagectomy is comparable to that of thoracotomy, calling the need for the modifications in the surgical procedures. Our methodology includes stripping of esophagus by nasogastric tube to reduce the manipulation of thoracic cavity and associated complications. We also present the comparison between the stripping and classic (Orringer's technique) esophagectomy. Patients presenting esophageal carcinoma from 2015 to 2017 were the target of this study. Patients undergoing esophagectomy were randomized to have classic or stripping esophagectomy. Operating time, manipulation time, blood losses during the surgery, duration of hospitalization, volume intake, hypotension time, arrhythmia, and transfusion were the recorded parameters. Complications, such as anastomotic leak, cardiac effects, and morbidity, were also studied. Seventy patients were referred for transhiatal esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma at the Al Zahra Hospital. Mean ages of patients in the stripping and Orringer group were 64.00 ± 10.57 and 57.42 ± 12.20 years, respectively. Manipulation time, operating time, blood loss during the surgery, and transfusion were statistically significant variables between the two groups. Although volume intake and duration of hospitalization were not significantly different parameters, however, betterment in the outcomes was evident. Substantial decrease in overall complications via stripping method was obtained, hence can be suggested as an effective alternative, to remove the need of thoracotomy, for transhiatal esophagectomy.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted, Video-Assisted, and Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

The utilization of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal cancer is increasing, despite limited data comparing RAMIE with other surgical approaches.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the literature for clinical outcomes of RAMIE compared with video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE) and open esophagectomy (OE).

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and Embase databases from January 1, 2013, to May 6, 2020, was performed.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies that compared RAMIE with VAMIE and/or OE for cancer were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline, data were extracted by independent reviewers. A random-effects meta-analysis of 9 propensity-matched studies was performed for the RAMIE vs VAMIE comparison only. A narrative synthesis of RAMIE vs VAMIE and OE was performed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The outcomes of interest were intraoperative outcomes (ie, estimated blood loss [EBL], operative time, lymph node [LN] harvest), short-term outcomes (anastomotic leak, recurrent laryngeal nerve [RLN] palsy, pulmonary and total complications, and 90-day mortality), and long-term oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, 21 studies (2 randomized clinical trials, 11 propensity-matched studies, and 8 unmatched studies) with 9355 patients were included. A meta-analysis was performed with 9 propensity-matched studies comparing RAMIE with VAMIE. The random-effects pooled estimate found an adjusted risk difference (RD) of -0.06 (95% CI, -0.11 to -0.01) favoring fewer pulmonary complications with RAMIE. There was no evidence of differences between RAMIE and VAMIE in LN harvest (mean difference [MD], -1.1 LN; 95% CI, -2.45 to 0.25 LNs), anastomotic leak (RD, 0.0; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.03), EBL (MD, -6.25 mL; 95% CI, -18.26 to 5.77 mL), RLN palsy (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.10), total complications (RD, 0.05; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.11), or 90-day mortality (RD, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.0). There was low certainty of evidence that RAMIE was associated with a longer disease-free survival compared with VAMIE. For OE comparisons (data not pooled), RAMIE was associated with a longer operative time, decreased EBL, and less pulmonary and total complications.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, RAMIE had similar outcomes as VAMIE but was associated with fewer pulmonary complications compared with VAMIE and OE. Studies on long-term functional and cancer outcomes are needed.

Transition from open to minimally invasive en bloc esophagectomy can be achieved without compromising surgical quality

BACKGROUND

En bloc esophagectomy results in higher lymph node (LN) retrieval than standard esophagectomy. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has gained traction due to improved short-term outcomes, but many large series report LN yields well below the international benchmark of 23. We sought to determine if an established approach to open en bloc resection can be safely transferred to MIE using LN yield as a quality benchmark.

METHODS

An open approach to en bloc esophagectomy (OE) was established over 5 years (~ 300 cases) before en bloc MIE was introduced in 2010. Patients undergoing curative-intent en bloc Ivor-Lewis and McKeown esophagectomy for cancer from 2010 to 2019 by a single surgeon with formal minimally invasive surgery training were identified from a prospectively collected database. Mann-Whitney U and χ² tests and cumulative sum analysis were used for statistical analysis. "Failure" was defined as LN yield less than AJCC's 8th edition guidelines: 10 LNs for pT1 cancers, 20 for pT2 and 30 for pT3-4.

RESULTS

A total of 269 esophageal resections met inclusion criteria [193(72%) OE; 76(28%) MIE]. Age, sex, BMI and comorbidities were comparable between groups. Tumors were larger and more often locally advanced in OE. Median LN retrieval was sufficient by international standards in both groups [OE:34(27-46); MIE:28(22-39); p = 0.01]. "Failures" occurred in 33(17%) of OE and 12(16%) MIE cases (p = 0.63). No learning effect was observed for LN yield. R0 resection rate was comparable [OE:191(99%); MIE:73(96%); p = 0.90]. Operative time was longer for MIE [275(246-300)] than OE [240(210-270) minutes], p < 0.0001, while estimated blood loss (OE:350(250-500)mL; MIE:300(200-400)mL; p = 0.02] and length of stay [OE:8(6-13); MIE7(6-9) days; p = 0.02] were higher for OE. Morbidity and mortality were comparable between groups and LN yield did not impact survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Under appropriate conditions, an established approach to open en bloc esophagectomy can be safely transferred to MIE without compromising surgical quality.