A comparative study of the therapeutic effect in two protocols: video-assisted thoracic surgery combined with laparoscopy versus right open transthoracic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer management

How pragmatic are randomised controlled trials evaluating minimally invasive surgery for oesophageal cancer? A methodological review of trial design using the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) tool

BACKGROUND

Surgical interventions are inherently complex and designing and conducting surgical randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be challenging. Trial design impacts the applicability of trial results to clinical practice. Given the recent growth in numbers of surgical RCTs, there is a need to better understand the validity and applicability of trials in this field.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the applicability and validity of RCTs comparing minimally invasive and open surgery for oesophageal cancer and to delineate areas for future research.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

RCTs comparing open with minimal invasive oesophagectomy, published January 2012-June 2023. Abstracts, pilot and feasibility studies, and systematic reviews were excluded.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

Three sequential searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL electronic databases and clinical trials registry databases.

CHARTING METHODS

Two independent reviewers screened the articles and used appropriate, validated tools (Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) and Risk of Bias 2) to assess study quality. Trials were considered pragmatic if they were conducted in multiple centres and had a mean score of four or above on the PRECIS-2.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs were identified. One was judged to be pragmatic. The remaining eight were limited by narrow eligibility criteria, being single-centred or having strict intervention protocols. Two studies were low risk of bias, of which one was pragmatic, and three high, due to unblinded outcome assessment. The remaining four studies were of 'some concern' due to poor reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Only one trial identified in this review was considered pragmatic. More lenient criteria, as used in other reviews, may increase the proportion. There is a need for clearer guidance on the cut-off values that define a trial as pragmatic. It is recommended that the intended purpose of the trial, whether explanatory or pragmatic, receives more attention during surgical trial study design and conduct.

Minimally invasive vs open vs hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal carcinoma has emerged as the contemporary alternative to conventional laparoscopic minimally invasive (LMIE), hybrid (HE) and open (OE) surgical approaches. No single study has compared all four approaches with a view to postoperative outcomes. A systematic search of electronic databases was undertaken. A network meta-analysis was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-network meta-analysis guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using R and Shiny. Seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 1063 patients were included. Overall, 32.9% of patients underwent OE (350/1063), 11.0% underwent HE (117/1063), 34.0% of patients underwent LMIE (361/1063), and 22.1% of patients underwent RAMIE (235/1063). OE had the lowest anastomotic leak rate 7.7% (27/350), while LMIE had the lowest pulmonary 10.8% (39/361), cardiac 0.56% (1/177) complications, re-intervention rates 5.08% (12/236), 90-day mortality 1.05% (2/191), and shortest length of hospital stay (mean 11.25 days). RAMIE displayed the lowest 30-day mortality rate at 0.80% (2/250). There was a significant increase in pulmonary complications for those undergoing OE (OR 3.63 [95% confidence interval: 1.4-9.77]) when compared to RAMIE. LMIE is a safe and feasible option for esophagectomy when compared to OE and HE. The upcoming RCTs will provide further data to make a more robust interrogation of the surgical outcomes following RAMIE compared to conventional open surgery to determine equipoise or superiority of each approach as the era of minimally invasive esophagectomy continues to evolve (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Registration: CRD42023438790).

[Evidence for Minimal Invasive Oesophageal Resection]

In the course of the last 20 years, minimally invasive therapy has become much more important in all areas. In particular, surgical procedures have been established in oncological surgery, even without generating the necessary evidence to assure that the quality is equal to that achieved with open procedures. For this purpose, it has only been in recent years that appropriate randomised controlled studies followed by meta-analyses have been carried out. In this article, we summarise the evidence for minimally invasive resection of the oesophagus and review current literature for each procedure.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American Society for Radiation Oncology Updated Clinical Practice Guidelines on Multimodality Therapy for Locally Advanced Cancer of the Esophagus or Gastroesophageal Junction

Outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer have improved over the last decade with the implementation of multimodality therapy. There are currently no comprehensive guidelines addressing multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer that have incorporated the input of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. To address the need for multidisciplinary input in the management of esophageal cancer and to meet current best practices for clinical practice guidelines, the current guidelines were created as a collaboration between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Physician representatives chose 8 key clinical questions pertinent to the care of patients with locally advanced, resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (excluding cervical location). A comprehensive literature review was performed identifying 227 articles that met the inclusion criteria covering the use of induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy before surgery, optimal radiation dose, the value of esophagectomy, timing of esophagectomy, the approach and extent of lymphadenectomy, the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and the value of adjuvant therapy after resection. The relevant data were reviewed and voted on by the panel with 80% of the authors, with 75% agreement on class and level of evidence. These data were then complied into the guidelines document.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American Society for Radiation Oncology Updated Clinical Practice Guidelines on Multimodality Therapy for Locally Advanced Cancer of the Esophagus or Gastroesophageal Junction

Outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer have improved over the last decade with the implementation of multimodality therapy. There are currently no comprehensive guidelines addressing multidisciplinary management of esophageal cancer that have incorporated the input of surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. To address the need for multidisciplinary input in the management of esophageal cancer and to meet current best practices for clinical practice guidelines, the current guidelines were created as a collaboration between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Physician representatives chose 8 key clinical questions pertinent to the care of patients with locally advanced, resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (excluding cervical location). A comprehensive literature review was performed identifying 227 articles that met the inclusion criteria covering the use of induction chemotherapy, chemotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy before surgery, optimal radiation dose, the value of esophagectomy, timing of esophagectomy, the approach and extent of lymphadenectomy, the use of minimally invasive esophagectomy, and the value of adjuvant therapy after resection. The relevant data were reviewed and voted on by the panel with 80% of the authors, with 75% agreement on class and level of evidence. These data were then complied into the guidelines document.

Network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on esophagectomies in esophageal cancer: The superiority of minimally invasive surgery

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses, with many limitations, have described the beneficial nature of minimal invasive procedures.

AIM

To compare all modalities of esophagectomies to each other from the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Reference Citation Analysis (https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com/) and CENTRAL databases to identify RCTs according to the following population, intervention, control, outcome (commonly known as PICO): P: Patients with resectable esophageal cancer; I/C: Transthoracic, transhiatal, minimally invasive (thoracolaparoscopic), hybrid, and robot-assisted esophagectomy; O: Survival, total adverse events, adverse events in subgroups, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. We used the Bayesian approach and the random effects model. We presented the geometry of the network, results with probabilistic statements, estimated intervention effects and their 95% confidence interval (CI), and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve to rank the interventions.

RESULTS

We included 11 studies in our analysis. We found a significant difference in postoperative pulmonary infection, which favored the minimally invasive intervention compared to transthoracic surgery (risk ratio 0.49; 95%CI: 0.23 to 0.99). The operation time was significantly shorter for the transhiatal approach compared to transthoracic surgery (mean difference -85 min; 95%CI: -150 to -29), hybrid intervention (mean difference -98 min; 95%CI: -190 to -9.4), minimally invasive technique (mean difference -130 min; 95%CI: -210 to -50), and robot-assisted esophagectomy (mean difference -150 min; 95%CI: -240 to -53). Other comparisons did not yield significant differences.

CONCLUSION

Based on our results, the implication of minimally invasive esophagectomy should be favored.

Risk factors and outcomes of fatal respiratory events after esophageal cancer surgery from 2011 through 2018: a nationwide cohort study in South Korea

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary complications are common after esophageal cancer surgery, but information regarding fatal respiratory events, such as postoperative acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and respiratory failure, is lacking. We aimed to investigate the prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes of fatal respiratory events after esophageal cancer surgery.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective population-based cohort study based on data from the National Health Insurance Service database in South Korea. All adult patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer who underwent esophageal surgery between January 2011 and December 2018 were included.

RESULTS

A total of 7039 patients were included in the final analysis. Among them, 100 patients (1.4%) experienced fatal respiratory adverse events (ARDS, 55 patients [0.8%]; respiratory failure, 45 patients [0.6%]). On multivariable logistic regression, residence in rural areas (vs. urban areas) at the time of surgery, open thoracotomy (vs. video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery), and lower annual case volume were associated with a higher prevalence of fatal respiratory adverse events. Moreover, postoperative fatal respiratory adverse events were related to increased in-hospital mortality, 1 year mortality, prolonged hospitalization, and increased total hospitalization costs.

CONCLUSION

In South Korea, 1.4% of patients experienced fatal respiratory events (ARDS or respiratory failure) after esophageal cancer surgery. Some factors were revealed as risk factors for fatal respiratory events, and fatal respiratory events worsened clinical outcomes after esophageal cancer surgery.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and individual patient data comparing minimally invasive with open oesophagectomy for cancer

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) for oesophageal cancer may reduce surgical complications compared with open oesophagectomy. MIO is, however, technically challenging and may impair optimal oncological resection. The aim of the present study was to assess if MIO for cancer is beneficial.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL was performed and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIO with open oesophagectomy were included in a meta-analysis. Survival was analysed using individual patient data. Random-effects model was used for pooled estimates of perioperative effects.

RESULTS

Among 3219 articles, six RCTs were identified including 822 patients. Three-year overall survival (56 (95 per cent c.i. 49 to 62) per cent for MIO versus 52 (95 per cent c.i. 44 to 60) per cent for open; P = 0.54) and disease-free survival (54 (95 per cent c.i. 47 to 61) per cent versus 50 (95 per cent c.i. 42 to 58) per cent; P = 0.38) were comparable. Overall complication rate was lower for MIO (odds ratio 0.33 (95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.53); P < 0.010) mainly due to fewer pulmonary complications (OR 0.44 (95 per cent c.i. 0.27 to 0.72); P < 0.010), including pneumonia (OR 0.41 (95 per cent c.i. 0.22 to 0.77); P < 0.010).

CONCLUSION

MIO for cancer is associated with a lower risk of postoperative complications compared with open resection. Overall and disease-free survival are comparable for the two techniques.

LAY SUMMARY

Oesophagectomy for cancer is associated with a high risk of complications. A minimally invasive approach might be less traumatic, leading to fewer complications and may also improve oncological outcome. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing minimally invasive to open oesophagectomy was performed. The analysis showed that the minimally invasive approach led to fewer postoperative complications, in particular, fewer pulmonary complications. Survival after surgery was comparable for the two techniques.

Treatment-related complications in patients with esophageal cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this review was to compare the available treatments of esophageal cancer, in terms of pulmonary, cardiovascular complications, anastomotic leakage, and esophagitis after treatment in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).

METHODS

Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and Embase were searched. The randomized controlled trials (RCT) that had compared the treatment -related complications of treatments for esophageal SCC were included. We included 39 randomized control trials in a network meta-analysis. The Chi2-test was used to assess of heterogeneity. The loop-specific and design-by-treatment interaction methods were used for assessment of consistency assumption. The risk ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to report the effect-sizes in the network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The pulmonary complication, cardiac complication, anastomotic leakage, and esophagitis were reported in 31, 11, 17, and 15 RCTs respectively. Video-assisted thoracoscopy + laparoscopy (VATS) was rank as the first and second treatment in terms of lower risk for pulmonary complication and anastomotic leakage. There was no statistically significant difference between treatments in terms of lower risk of cardiovascular complications. However, Surgery + Cisplatin + Fluorouracil (SCF) was ranked as better treatment. 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy + Docetaxel + Cisplatin (3DCRTDC) was the best treatment in terms of lower risk for esophagitis.

CONCLUSION

According to the results of this study, it seems the risk of pulmonary, cardiovascular, anastomotic leakage and esophagitis complications for VATS, SCF, surgery + radiotherapy (SRT), and 3DCRTDC was lower than other treatments respectively in the networks.

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.

Major Postoperative Complications in Esophageal Cancer After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Compared With Open Esophagectomy: An Updated Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the existing literature comparing cardiopulmonary complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with open esophagectomy (OE) and conduct a meta-analysis based on the relevant studies.

METHODS

A systematic search for articles was performed in Medline, Embase, Wiley Online Library, and the Cochrane Library. The relative risks or odds ratios (ORs) were calculated by using fixed or random-effects models. The I² and X² tests were used to test for statistical heterogeneity. We performed a metaregression for the pulmonary complications with the adenocarcinoma proportion and tumor stage. Publication bias and small-study effects were assessed using Egger's test and Begg's funnel plot.

RESULTS

A total of 30,850 participants were enrolled in the 63 studies evaluated in the meta-analysis. Arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism, pulmonary complications, gastric tip necrosis, anastomotic leakage, and vocal cord palsy were chosen as outcomes. The occurrence rate of arrhythmia was significantly lower in patients receiving MIE than in patients receiving OE (OR = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.53-0.89), with heterogeneity (I² = 30.7%, P = 0.067). The incidence of pulmonary complications was significantly lower in patients receiving MIE (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.45-0.63) but heterogeneity remained (I² = 72.1%, P = 0.000). The risk of gastric tip necrosis (OR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.07-2.05) after OE was lower than that after MIE. Anastomotic leakage, pulmonary embolism, and vocal cord palsy showed no significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

MIE has advantages over OE, especially in reducing the incidence of arrhythmia and pulmonary complications. Thus, MIE can be recommended as the preferred alternative surgery method for resectable esophageal cancer.

Perioperative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Open Esophagectomy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

To explore the perioperative outcomes, safety, and effectiveness of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) versus open esophagectomy (OE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Randomized controlled comparing MIE versus OE were searched from PubMed and other electronic databases between January 1991 and March 2019. Thirteen outcome variables were analyzed. Random effects model was used to calculate the effect size. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials totaling 569 patients were analyzed. For MIE, there was a significantly reduction of 67% in the odds of pulmonary complications. For operating time, MIE was nonsignificantly 29 minutes longer. MIE was associated with nonsignificantly less blood loss of 443.98 mL. There was nonsignificant 60% reduction in the odds of total complications and 51% reduction in the odds of medical complications favoring MIE group. For delayed gastric emptying, there was a nonsignificant reduction of 75% in the odds ratio favoring the MIE group. For postoperative anastomotic leak, there was a nonsignificant increase of 48% in the odds ratio for MIE group. For gastric necrosis, chylothorax, reintervention and 30-day mortality, no difference was observed for both groups. There was a nonsignificant reduction in the length of hospital stay of 7.98 days and intensive care unit stay of 2.7 days favoring MIE.

CONCLUSIONS

MIE seems to be superior to OE for only pulmonary complications. All the other perioperative variables were comparable however, the trend is favoring the MIE. Therefore, the routine use of MIE presently may only be justifiable in high volume esophagogastric units.

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.

Risk factors and outcomes associated with anastomotic leaks following esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Anastomotic leaks (AL) are a major complication after esophagectomy. This meta-analysis aimed to determine identify risks factors for AL (preoperative, intra-operative, and post-operative factors) and assess the consequences to outcome on patients who developed an AL. This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines, and eligible studies were identified through a search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases up to 31 December 2018. A meta-analysis was conducted with the use of random-effects modeling and prospectively registered with the PROSPERO database (Registration CRD42018130732). This review identified 174 studies reporting outcomes of 74,226 patients undergoing esophagectomy. The overall pooled AL rates were 11%, ranging from 0 to 49% in individual studies. Majority of studies were from Asia (n = 79). In pooled analyses, 23 factors were associated with AL (17 preoperative and six intraoperative). AL were associated with adverse outcomes including pulmonary (OR: 4.54, CI95%: 2.99-6.89, P < 0.001) and cardiac complications (OR: 2.44, CI95%: 1.77-3.37, P < 0.001), prolonged hospital stay (mean difference: 15 days, CI95%: 10-21 days, P < 0.001), and in-hospital mortality (OR: 5.91, CI95%: 1.41-24.79, P = 0.015). AL are a major complication following esophagectomy accounting for major morbidity and mortality. This meta-analysis identified modifiable risk factors for AL, which can be a target for interventions to reduce AL rates. Furthermore, identification of both modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors will facilitate risk stratification and prediction of AL enabling better perioperative planning, patient counseling, and informed consent.

Early experience with totally robotic esophagectomy for malignancy. Surgical and oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

Over recent decades, minimally invasive esophagectomy has gained popularity and is increasingly performed worldwide. The aim of this work was to investigate the perioperative, clinicopathologic, and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted esophagectomy on a consecutive series of totally robotic procedures.

METHODS

All patients received either an Ivor Lewis or a McKeown procedure according to tumor location. Perioperative, clinicopathologic and oncological outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients underwent robot-assisted esophagectomy procedures. All underwent surgery for primary esophageal neoplasms. Neoadjuvant therapy was given to 22 patients. R0 resections were achieved in all patients and no conversion to open surgery occurred. Overall morbidity and mortality were 42% and 10%, respectively. The 1 year disease free survival was 78.9%, whereas the 1 year overall survival was 84.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery can be employed to treat esophageal malignancy competently. Robotic esophagectomy satisfies all features of pathologic appropriateness and offers the expected oncological results.

Minimally invasive esophagectomy in the lateral-prone position: Experience of 124 cases in a single center

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy was first introduced as a new technique for esophageal cancer treatment 20 years ago. Performing this procedure in the lateral-prone position is the most appropriate method. Since May 2013, our center has performed 124 esophageal cancer operations using this procedure. Herein, we share our experience.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 124 consecutive patients who had received minimally invasive esophagectomy in the lateral-prone position from May 2013 to June 2017. The procedure, operative variables, postoperative complications, and oncology outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

The surgery was successful in all 124 patients; three cases converted to an abdominal opening procedure during surgery. The mean total lymph node harvest was 19.2: 12.9 in the thoracic cavity and 6.0 in the abdominal cavity. The average total operation duration was 376 minutes and blood loss was 156 mL. No mortality occurred within 30 postoperative days. Forty-three cases of postoperative morbidity occurred in 38 patients (30.6%), including 11 anastomotic leakages (8.9%), 1 chyle leak (0.8%), 12 lateral recurrent nerve palsies (9.7%), 11 pulmonary complications (8.9%), and 8 other complications (6.5%). A learning curve indicated that blood loss, operation duration, and the number of lymph nodes harvested would improve with time.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical and oncological outcomes following minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer were acceptable. There are some advantages to this technique compared to previous reports of opening procedures.

Does minimally invasive oesophagectomy provide a benefit in hospital length of stay when compared with open oesophagectomy?

A best evidence topic in thoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: 'in patients undergoing oesophagectomy, does a minimally invasive approach convey a benefit in hospital length of stay (LOS), when compared to an open approach?' A total of 647 papers were identified, using an a priori defined search strategy; 24 papers represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date, country of publication, patient group, study type, relevant outcomes and key results are tabulated. Of the studies identified, data from two randomized controlled trials were available. The first randomized study compared the use of open thoracotomy and laparotomy versus thoracoscopy and laparoscopy. Those undergoing minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) left hospital on average 3 days earlier than those treated with the open oesophagectomy (OO) technique (P = 0.044). The other randomized trial, which compared thoracotomy with thoracoscopy and laparoscopy, demonstrated a reduction of 1.8 days in the LOS when employing the MIO technique (P < 0.001). With the addition of the remaining 22 non-randomized studies, comprising 3 prospective and 19 retrospective cohort studies, which are heterogeneous with regard to their design, study populations and outcomes; data are available representing 3173 MIO and 25 691 OO procedures. In total, 13 studies (including the randomized trials) demonstrate a significant reduction in hospital LOS associated with MIO; 10 suggest no significant difference between techniques; and only 1 suggests a significantly greater length of stay associated with MIO. The only two randomized trials comparing MIO and OO demonstrated a reduction in length of stay in the MIO group, without compromising survival or increasing complication rates. All bar one of the non-randomized studies demonstrated either a significant reduction in length of stay with MIO or no difference. The benefit in reduced length of stay was not at the cost of worsened survival or increased complications, and conversion rates in all studies were low.

Comparison of outcomes between minimally invasive oesophagectomy and open oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed to compare perioperative outcomes between minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIE) and open oesophagectomy (OE).

METHODS

PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched up to January 2015 using keywords: esophageal cancer, MIE, OE, hybrid MIE. Randomized controlled trials or prospective studies comparing the efficacy of OE with MIE or hybrid MIE in oesophageal cancer patients were included. Sensitivity analysis and quality assessment were performed.

RESULTS

MIE required longer operation time (pooled standardized difference in means = 0.565; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.272, 0.858; P < 0.001) than OE, but resulted in less blood loss, shorter hospital stays, lower incidence of pneumonia and vocal cord palsy (P values ≤0.026). There was no difference between MIE and OE regarding lymph node yield (pooled standardized difference in means = 0.078; 95% CI = -0.111, 0.267; P = 0.419). Length of intensive care unit stay, in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality were also similar (P values ≥0.419) in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding certain clinical outcomes, MIE may be more beneficial than OE.