Fully thoracoscopic versus conventional open resection for esophageal carcinoma: A perioperative comparison

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.

Long-term outcome in mediastinal malignancies: video-assisted thoracoscopic versus open surgery

Purpose

There are not many studies comparing long-term oncological outcomes between video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and open surgery for mediastinal malignancies. This study aimed to compare perioperative and long-term outcomes of these two techniques in the treatment of mediastinal malignancies.

Methods

This is a retrospective study: patients with mediastinal malignancies underwent VATS or open surgery from 2010 to 2013 and were followed until 2019. The primary endpoints were long-term oncological outcomes, including tumor recurrence and mortality. Secondary endpoints were perioperative outcomes (operative duration, blood loss, pain, chest drainage duration, hospital length of stay, and complications).

Results

There were 36 patients in the VATS group and 49 patients in the open group. The median follow-up duration was 90 months. VATS significantly reduced operation time (84.6 versus 124.8 min), blood loss (59.8 versus 235.2 ml), postoperative pain score (4.9 versus 6.7), the duration of chest tube drainage (2.1 versus 3.1 days), and postoperative hospital stay (5.2 versus 8.0 days). The two groups were comparable regarding the recurrence rate (2.4 versus 2.1/100 person-years) and mortality rate (0.8 versus 0.9/100 person-years).

Conclusion

Compared with open surgery, VATS is less traumatic, reduces postoperative chest drainage, and shortens hospital stay with comparable long-term oncological outcomes. We advocate the VATS approach as a favored option for the resection of mediastinal malignancies.