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.
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.
Authors: W T Van den Broek; O Makay; F J Berends; J Z Yuan; A P J Houdijk; S Meijer; M A Cuesta Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2004-04-06 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: J D Luketich; H C Fernando; N A Christie; P O Buenaventura; R J Keenan; S Ikramuddin; P R Schauer Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Juan C Rodríguez-Sanjuán; Marcos Gómez-Ruiz; Soledad Trugeda-Carrera; Carlos Manuel-Palazuelos; Antonio López-Useros; Manuel Gómez-Fleitas Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-02-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Gregory O'Grady; Ahmer M Hameed; Tony C Pang; Emma Johnston; Vincent T Lam; Arthur J Richardson; Michael J Hollands Journal: World J Surg Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Ines Gockel; Constantin Johannes Ahlbrand; Michael Arras; Elke Maria Schreiber; Hauke Lang Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Juha Kauppi; Jari Räsänen; Eero Sihvo; Riikka Huuhtanen; Kaisa Nelskylä; Jarmo Salo Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-12-06 Impact factor: 4.584