OBJECTIVE: The aim was to conduct a comparative analysis of outcome after minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) versus open oesophagectomy (OO) for early oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) carcinoma. METHODS: Inclusion criteria for MIO and a matched group of OO were pT<2 and N0. Surgical outcome, complications, survival and health-related quality of life (HRQL) were assessed. RESULTS: Between January 2005 and January 2010, 175 patients (101 OOs, 65 MIOs and nine MIOs converted to OO) fulfilled the abovementioned criteria. Histology was predominantly adenocarcinoma (75%), equally distributed between both groups as were preoperative co-morbidities (p = 0.43), pathologic staging (pT: p = 0.56) and mean number of resected lymph nodes in pTIS/1a (p = 0.23) and pT1b (p = 0.13). Blood loss was less (p = 0.01) and duration of operation longer (p = 0.001) in MIO. Hospital mortality (p = 0.66) and postoperative complications (p = 0.34) were comparable. However, respiratory complications (p = 0.008) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission (p = 0.02) were higher in OO. Gastrointestinal complications (p = 0.005), that is, gastroparesis (p = 0.004) were more frequent in MIO. At 3 months, postoperative fatigue, pain (general) and gastrointestinal pain were less in MIO (p = 0.09, 0.05 and 0.01, respectively). Five-year cancer-specific and recurrence-free survival stratified to the pathologic T-stage were not statistically different between MIO and OO. CONCLUSION: MIO is a valuable alternative to OO for the treatment of early oesophageal and GOJ carcinoma. This study underscores the need for large-scale, preferably multicentric studies to assess the real value of MIO versus OO.
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to conduct a comparative analysis of outcome after minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) versus open oesophagectomy (OO) for early oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) carcinoma. METHODS: Inclusion criteria for MIO and a matched group of OO were pT<2 and N0. Surgical outcome, complications, survival and health-related quality of life (HRQL) were assessed. RESULTS: Between January 2005 and January 2010, 175 patients (101 OOs, 65 MIOs and nine MIOs converted to OO) fulfilled the abovementioned criteria. Histology was predominantly adenocarcinoma (75%), equally distributed between both groups as were preoperative co-morbidities (p = 0.43), pathologic staging (pT: p = 0.56) and mean number of resected lymph nodes in pTIS/1a (p = 0.23) and pT1b (p = 0.13). Blood loss was less (p = 0.01) and duration of operation longer (p = 0.001) in MIO. Hospital mortality (p = 0.66) and postoperative complications (p = 0.34) were comparable. However, respiratory complications (p = 0.008) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission (p = 0.02) were higher in OO. Gastrointestinal complications (p = 0.005), that is, gastroparesis (p = 0.004) were more frequent in MIO. At 3 months, postoperative fatigue, pain (general) and gastrointestinal pain were less in MIO (p = 0.09, 0.05 and 0.01, respectively). Five-year cancer-specific and recurrence-free survival stratified to the pathologic T-stage were not statistically different between MIO and OO. CONCLUSION:MIO is a valuable alternative to OO for the treatment of early oesophageal and GOJ carcinoma. This study underscores the need for large-scale, preferably multicentric studies to assess the real value of MIO versus OO.
Authors: Lieven Depypere; Willy Coosemans; Philippe Nafteux; Hans Van Veer; Arne Neyrinck; Steve Coppens; Chantal Boelens; Kristel Laes; Toni Lerut Journal: J Vis Surg Date: 2017-03-17
Authors: Juha Kauppi; Jari Räsänen; Eero Sihvo; Riikka Huuhtanen; Kaisa Nelskylä; Jarmo Salo Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-12-06 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: M Jacobs; R C Macefield; R G Elbers; K Sitnikova; I J Korfage; E M A Smets; I Henselmans; M I van Berge Henegouwen; J C J M de Haes; J M Blazeby; M A G Sprangers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 4.147