Skip to main content
Log in

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy: Meta-Analysis of Outcomes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

A meta-analysis of the current literature was performed to compare the perioperative outcome measures and oncological impact between minimally invasive and open esophagectomy.

Methods

Using the electronic databases Medline, Embase, Pubmed and the Cochrane Library, we performed a meta-analysis pooling the effects of outcomes of 1,008 patients enrolled into eight comparative studies, using classic and modern meta-analytic methods.

Results

Two comparisons were considered for this systematic review: (I) open thoracotomy vs. VATS/laparoscopy esophagectomy and (II) open thoracotomy vs. VATS esophagectomy. In comparison I: both procedures report equally comparable outcomes (removed lymph nodes, 30-day mortality, 3-year survival) with the exception of overall morbidity (P = 0.038; in favor of the MIE arm) and anastomotic stricture (P < 0.001; in favor of the open thoracotomy arm). In comparison II: No differences were noted between treatment arms concerning postoperative outcomes and survival.

Conclusions

In summary, both arms were comparable with regard to perioperative results and prognosis. Further prospective comparative or randomized-controlled trials focusing on the oncological impact of MIE are needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Orringer MB. Substernal gastric bypass of the excluded thoracic esophagus for palliation of esophageal carcinoma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1975;70:836.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kelsen DP, Ginsberg R, Pajak TF, et al. Chemotherapy followed by surgery compared with surgery alone for localized esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1979–1984.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Luketich JD, Fernando HC, Christie NA, et al. Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagomyotomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72:1909–1912, discussion 1912–1913.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stein H, Siewert J. Improved prognosis of resected esophageal cancer. World J Surg. 2004;28:520–525.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Orringer MB, Marshall B, Iannettoni MD. Transhiatal esophagectomy: clinical experience and refinements. Ann Surg. 1999;230:392–400.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wu P, Posner M. The role of surgery in the management of oesophageal cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2003;4:481–488.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Smithers BM, Gotley DC, Martin I, Thomas JM. Comparison of the outcomes between open and minimally invasive esophagectomy. Ann Surg. 2007;245:232–240.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Braghetto I, Csendes A, Cardemil G, et al. Open transthoracic or transhiatal esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy in terms of morbidity, mortality and survival. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1681–1686.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nguyen NT, Follette DM, Wolfe BM, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive esophagectomy with transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy. Arch Surg. 2000;135:920–925.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Law S, Fok M, Chu KM, Wong J. Thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Surgery. 1997;122:8–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kunisaki C, Hatori S, Imada T, et al. Video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy with a voice-controlled robot: the AESOP system. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2004;14:323–327.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Taguchi S, Osugi H, Higashino M, et al. Comparison of three-field esophagectomy for esophageal cancer incorporating open or thoracoscopic thoracotomy. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:1445–1450.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Morris LG, Tran TN, DeLacure MD. Early experience with minimally invasive esophagectomy in head and neck surgical patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;137:947–949.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zingg U, McQuinn A, DiValentino D, et al. Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;87:911–919.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bresadola V, Terrosu G, Cojutti A, et al. Laparoscopic versus open gastroplasty in esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a comparative study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2006;16:63–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Valentí V, Fares R, Reynolds N, et al. Open and laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy for cancer of the oesophagus: analysis of resection margins and lymph nodes. Cir Esp. 2008;83:24–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Benzoni E, Terrosu G, Bresadola V, et al. A comparative study of the transhiatal laparoscopic approach versus laparoscopic gastric mobilisation and right open transthoracic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer management. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2007;16:395–401.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bernabe KQ, Bolton JS, Richardson WS. Laparoscopic hand-assisted versus open transhiatal esophagectomy: a case-control study. Surg Endosc. 2005;19:334–337.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354:1896–1900.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mahid SS, Hornung CA, Minor KS, et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis for the surgeon scientist. Br J Surg. 2006;93:1315–1324.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd edn. London: BMJ Books; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Review Manager (RevMan) [computer program]. Version 4.2 for Windows. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2003.

  23. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.6 [updated September 2006]. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2006, Chichester, UK: Wiley.

  24. Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, et al. Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:31.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rosenberg MS, Adams DC, Gurevitch J. MetaWin. Statistical software for meta-analysis. Version 2. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Van den Broek WT, Makay O, Berends FJ, et al. Laparoscopically assisted transhiatal resection for malignancies of the distal esophagus. Surg Endosc. 2004;18:812–817. Erratum in: Surg Endosc 2004;18:1292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no financial or personal relationships with persons or organisations that could inappropriately influence this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George Sgourakis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sgourakis, G., Gockel, I., Radtke, A. et al. Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy: Meta-Analysis of Outcomes. Dig Dis Sci 55, 3031–3040 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-010-1153-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-010-1153-1

Keywords

Navigation