Dataset Information

Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: van Workum F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7455468 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

van Workum Frans F Klarenbeek Bastiaan R BR Baranov Nikolaj N Rovers Maroeska M MM Rosman Camiel C

Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus 20200801 8

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 ...[more]

PMID: 32350519

Similar Datasets

Project description:Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has consistently been associated with improved perioperative outcome and similar oncological safety compared to open esophagectomy. However, it is currently unclear what type of MIE is preferred for patients with resectable esophageal cancer.Literature was searched in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library combining relevant search terms. Articles that included patients undergoing totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) or hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) and compared McKeown with Ivor Lewis procedures were included. Studies were excluded if they included >10% of patients undergoing a procedure other than MIE McKeown or MIE Ivor Lewis (i.e., transhiatal resections). The primary outcome parameter was anastomotic leakage. Secondary outcome parameters were: other complications, reinterventions, reoperations, hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, postoperative mortality, operative time, blood loss, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes examined, quality of life and costs.Five studies with a total of 1,681 patients undergoing TMIE were included. There were no studies comparing HMIE McKeown versus HMIE Ivor Lewis. There were no randomized controlled trials and all included studies were cohort studies with a moderate risk of bias. No meta-analysis could be performed for R0 resection rate, survival, quality of life and costs because there was insufficient data available for these parameters. The incidence of anastomotic leakage did not differ between the groups [relative risk (RR) =1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) =0.90-10.38, P=0.14]. TMIE Ivor Lewis was associated with a lower incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) trauma (RR =6.70, 95% CI =3.09-14.55, P<0.001), a shorter hospital length of stay [standardized mean difference (SMD) =0.17, 95% CI =0.06-0.28, P=0.002] and less blood loss (SMD =0.69, 95% CI =0.25-1.12, P=0.002).TMIE Ivor Lewis is associated with improved outcome regarding RLN trauma, hospital length of stay and blood loss as compared to TMIE-McKeown, but the incidence of anastomotic leakage is not different. The evidence is limited, of low quality and at risk for bias. A randomized controlled trial is currently being performed in order to demonstrate whether a McKeown or Ivor Lewis procedure should be preferred in patients undergoing MIE.

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).

Dataset Information

Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets