Dataset Information

Efficacy of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy vs open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The first line treatment regimen for esophageal cancer is still surgical resection and the choice of surgical scheme depends on surgeon. Now the efficacy comparison of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) is still controversial. AIM:To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of HMIE and OE in patients with esophageal cancer. METHODS:PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for related articles. The odds ratio (OR) or standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to evaluate the effectiveness of HMIE and OE. RESULTS:Seventeen studies including a total of 2397 patients were selected. HMIE was significantly associated with less blood loss (SMD = -0.43, 95%CI: -0.66, -0.20; P = 0.0002) and lower incidence of pulmonary complications (OR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.57, 0.90; P = 0.004). No significant differences were seen in the lymph node yield (SMD = 0.11, 95%CI: -0.08, 0.30; P = 0.26), operation time (SMD = 0.24, 95%CI: -0.14, 0.61; P = 0.22), total complications rate (OR = 0.68, 95%CI: 0.46, 0.99; P = 0.05), cardiac complication rate (OR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.62, 1.34; P = 0.64), anastomotic leak rate (OR = 0.95, 95%CI: 0.67, 1.35; P = 0.78), duration of intensive care unit stay (SMD = -0.01, 95%CI: -0.21, 0.19; P = 0.93), duration of hospital stay (SMD = -0.13, 95%CI: -0.28, 0.01; P = 0.08), and total mortality rates (OR = 0.70, 95%CI: 0.47, 1.06; P = 0.09) between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSION:Compared with the OE, HMIE shows less blood loss and pulmonary complications. However, further studies are necessary to evaluate the long-term oncologic outcomes of HMIE.

SUBMITTER: Yang J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6883181 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy <i>vs</i> open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis.

Yang Jiao J Chen Ling L Ge Ke K Yang Jian-Le JL

World journal of gastrointestinal oncology 20191101 11

<h4>Background</h4>The first line treatment regimen for esophageal cancer is still surgical resection and the choice of surgical scheme depends on surgeon. Now the efficacy comparison of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) is still controversial.<h4>Aim</h4>To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of HMIE and OE in patients with esophageal cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for related articles ...[more]

PMID: 31798787

Similar Datasets

Project description:Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing HMIE with TMIE. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles comparing HMIE and TMIE were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. The primary outcome was pneumonia. Sensitivity analysis was performed by analyzing outcome for open chest hybrid MIE versus total TMIE and open abdomen MIE versus TMIE separately. Therefore, subgroup analysis was performed for laparoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, thoracoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, Ivor Lewis HMIE versus Ivor Lewis TMIE, and McKeown HMIE versus McKeown TMIE. There were no randomized controlled trials. Twenty-nine studies with a total of 3732 patients were included. Studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. In the main analysis, the pooled incidence of pneumonia was 19.0% after HMIE and 9.8% after TMIE which was not significantly different between the groups (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97-2.20). TMIE was associated with a lower incidence of wound infections (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.13-2.90) and less blood loss (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.34-1.22) but with longer operative time (SMD:-0.33, 95% CI: -0.59--0.08). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy-assisted HMIE was associated with a higher lymph node count than TMIE, and Ivor Lewis HMIE was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate than Ivor Lewis TMIE. In general, TMIE was associated with moderately lower morbidity compared to HMIE, but randomized controlled evidence is lacking. The higher leakage rate and lower lymph node count that was found after TMIE in sensitivity analysis indicate that TMIE can also have disadvantages. The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully by surgeons when moving from HMIE to TMIE.

Project description:BackgroundTransthoracic minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly performed as part of curative multimodality treatment. There appears to be no robust evidence on the preferred location of the anastomosis after transthoracic MIE.ObjectiveTo compare an intrathoracic with a cervical anastomosis in a randomized clinical trial.Design, setting, and participantsThis open, multicenter randomized clinical superiority trial was performed at 9 Dutch high-volume hospitals. Patients with midesophageal to distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer planned for curative resection were included. Data collection occurred from April 2016 through February 2020.InterventionPatients were randomly assigned (1:1) to transthoracic MIE with intrathoracic or cervical anastomosis.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was anastomotic leakage requiring endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical intervention. Secondary outcomes were overall anastomotic leak rate, other postoperative complications, length of stay, mortality, and quality of life.ResultsTwo hundred sixty-two patients were randomized, and 245 were eligible for analysis. Anastomotic leakage necessitating reintervention occurred in 15 of 122 patients with intrathoracic anastomosis (12.3%) and in 39 of 123 patients with cervical anastomosis (31.7%; risk difference, -19.4% [95% CI, -29.5% to -9.3%]). Overall anastomotic leak rate was 12.3% in the intrathoracic anastomosis group and 34.1% in the cervical anastomosis group (risk difference, -21.9% [95% CI, -32.1% to -11.6%]). Intensive care unit length of stay, mortality rates, and overall quality of life were comparable between groups, but intrathoracic anastomosis was associated with fewer severe complications (risk difference, -11.3% [-20.4% to -2.2%]), lower incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (risk difference, -7.3% [95% CI, -12.1% to -2.5%]), and better quality of life in 3 subdomains (mean differences: dysphagia, -12.2 [95% CI, -19.6 to -4.7]; problems of choking when swallowing, -10.3 [95% CI, -16.4 to 4.2]; trouble with talking, -15.3 [95% CI, -22.9 to -7.7]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, intrathoracic anastomosis resulted in better outcome for patients treated with transthoracic MIE for midesophageal to distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer.Trial registrationTrialregister.nl Identifier: NL4183 (NTR4333).

Project description:To update our experiences with minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 445 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy between January 2009 and July 2015 at the Cancer Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and used 103 patients who underwent open McKeown esophagectomy in the same period as controls. Among 375 patients who underwent total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy, 180 in the early period were chosen for the study of learning curve of total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy. These 180 minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomies performed by five surgeons were divided into three groups according to time sequence as group 1 (n = 60), group 2 (n = 60) and group 3 (n = 60).Patients who underwent total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy had significantly less intraoperative blood loss than patients who underwent hybrid minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy or open McKeown esophagectomy (100 mL vs 300 mL vs 200 mL, P = 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in operation time, number of harvested lymph nodes, or postoperative morbidity including incidence of pulmonary complication and anastomotic leak between total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy, hybrid minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy and open McKeown esophagectomy groups. There were no significant differences in 5-year survival between these three groups (60.5% vs 47.9% vs 35.6%, P = 0.735). Patients in group 1 had significantly longer duration of operation than those in groups 2 and 3. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, number of harvested lymph nodes, or postoperative morbidity including incidence of pulmonary complication and anastomotic leak between groups 1, 2 and 3.Total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy was associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss and comparable short term and long term survival compared with hybrid minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy or open Mckeown esophagectomy. At least 12 cases are needed to master total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy in a high volume center.

Project description:For esophageal cancer patients, radical esophagolymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of multimodality treatment with curative intent. Transthoracic esophagectomy is the preferred surgical approach worldwide allowing for en-bloc resection of the tumor with the surrounding lymph nodes. However, the percentage of cardiopulmonary complications associated with the transthoracic approach is high (50 to 70%).Recent studies have shown that robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy (RATE) is at least equivalent to the open transthoracic approach for esophageal cancer in terms of short-term oncological outcomes. RATE was accompanied with reduced blood loss, shorter ICU stay and improved lymph node retrieval compared with open esophagectomy, and the pulmonary complication rate, hospital stay and perioperative mortality were comparable. The objective is to evaluate the efficacy, risks, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of RATE as an alternative to open transthoracic esophagectomy for treatment of esophageal cancer.This is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven monocenter randomized controlled parallel-group, superiority trial. All adult patients (age ? 18 and ? 80 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3, M0) esophageal carcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus and with European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 will be assessed for eligibility and included after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 112) with resectable esophageal cancer are randomized in the outpatient department to either RATE (n = 56) or open three-stage transthoracic esophageal resection (n = 56). The primary outcome of this study is the percentage of overall complications (grade 2 and higher) as stated by the modified Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications.This is the first randomized controlled trial designed to compare RATE with open transthoracic esophagectomy as surgical treatment for resectable esophageal cancer. If our hypothesis is proven correct, RATE will result in a lower percentage of postoperative complications, lower blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, but with at least similar oncologic outcomes and better postoperative quality of life compared with open transthoracic esophagectomy. The study started in January 2012. Follow-up will be 5 years. Short-term results will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient.Dutch trial register: NTR3291 ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01544790.

Project description:ImportanceAvailable data comparing the long-term results of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) with that of open esophagectomy are conflicting, with similar or even better results reported for the minimally invasive esophagectomy group.ObjectiveTo evaluate the long-term, 5-year outcomes of HMIE vs open esophagectomy, including overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and pattern of disease recurrence, and the potential risk factors associated with these outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial is a post hoc follow-up study that analyzes the results of the open-label Multicentre Randomized Controlled Phase III Trial, which enrolled patients from 13 different centers in France and was conducted from October 26, 2009, to April 4, 2012. Eligible patients were 18 to 75 years of age and were diagnosed with resectable cancer of the middle or lower third of the esophagus. After exclusions, patients were randomized to either the HMIE group or the open esophagectomy group. Data analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis from November 19, 2019, to December 4, 2020.InterventionsHybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (laparoscopic gastric mobilization with open right thoracotomy) was compared with open esophagectomy.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end points of this follow-up study were 5-year OS and DFS. The secondary end points were the site of disease recurrence and potential risk factors associated with DFS and OS.ResultsA total of 207 patients were randomized, of whom 175 were men (85%), and the median (range) age was 61 (23-78) years. The median follow-up duration was 58.2 (95% CI, 56.5-63.8) months. The 5-year OS was 59% (95% CI, 48%-68%) in the HMIE group and 47% (95% CI, 37%-57%) in the open esophagectomy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.48-1.06). The 5-year DFS was 52% (95% CI, 42%-61%) in the HMIE group vs 44% (95% CI, 34%-53%) in the open esophagectomy group (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.55-1.17). No statistically significant difference in recurrence rate or location was found between groups. In a multivariable analysis, major intraoperative and postoperative complications (HR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.41-3.45; P < .001) and major pulmonary complications (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.21-3.10; P = .005) were identified as risk factors associated with decreased OS. Similarly, multivariable analysis of DFS identified overall intraoperative and postoperative complications (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.28-2.90; P = .002) and major pulmonary complications (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.19-2.86; P = .006) as risk factors.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found no difference in long-term survival between the HMIE and open esophagectomy groups. Major postoperative overall complications and pulmonary complications appeared to be independent risk factors in decreased OS and DFS, providing additional evidence that HMIE may be associated with improved oncological results compared with open esophagectomy primarily because of a reduction in postoperative complications.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00937456.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy vs open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis.

Publications

Efficacy of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy <i>vs</i> open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets