BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been performed at specialized centers for 15 years, but few studies have looked at outcomes in patients with locally advanced cancers, and few studies have provided long-term survival comparison with Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (ILE) to determine oncologic benefit or equivalence of MIE. HYPOTHESIS: Minimally invasive esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal carcinoma has similar oncologic outcomes to traditional open ILE with less associated short-term morbidity and mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective comparison of patients with stage II or III esophageal carcinoma undergoing 3-field MIE compared with open ILE. SETTING: University medical center. PATIENTS: From 1995 to 2009, 64 patients who underwent MIE (33 patients) or ILE (31 patients) with clinical stage II or III esophageal cancer were compared. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end points included operative performance, morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, and survival. RESULTS: No differences were noted between the groups in demographics, neoadjuvant therapy use (P = .22), resection completeness (R0:R1) (P = .57), length of stay (P = .59), intensive care unit stay (P = .36), anastomotic leak (P = 1.0), pulmonary morbidity (P = .26), and mortality (P = 1.0). Median follow-up was 19 months for MIE and 17 months for ILE. Survival at 2 years was 55% for MIE (18 of 33 patients) and 32% for ILE (10 of 31 patients) while disease-free survival was 55% for MIE (18) and 26% for ILE (8). CONCLUSIONS: Our survival analysis shows divergent curves that favor MIE but have not yet reached statistical significance. The oncologic outcomes of MIE are comparable to that of ILE 2 years after resection.
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been performed at specialized centers for 15 years, but few studies have looked at outcomes in patients with locally advanced cancers, and few studies have provided long-term survival comparison with Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (ILE) to determine oncologic benefit or equivalence of MIE. HYPOTHESIS: Minimally invasive esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal carcinoma has similar oncologic outcomes to traditional open ILE with less associated short-term morbidity and mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective comparison of patients with stage II or III esophageal carcinoma undergoing 3-field MIE compared with open ILE. SETTING: University medical center. PATIENTS: From 1995 to 2009, 64 patients who underwent MIE (33 patients) or ILE (31 patients) with clinical stage II or III esophageal cancer were compared. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end points included operative performance, morbidity, mortality, hospital stay, and survival. RESULTS: No differences were noted between the groups in demographics, neoadjuvant therapy use (P = .22), resection completeness (R0:R1) (P = .57), length of stay (P = .59), intensive care unit stay (P = .36), anastomotic leak (P = 1.0), pulmonary morbidity (P = .26), and mortality (P = 1.0). Median follow-up was 19 months for MIE and 17 months for ILE. Survival at 2 years was 55% for MIE (18 of 33 patients) and 32% for ILE (10 of 31 patients) while disease-free survival was 55% for MIE (18) and 26% for ILE (8). CONCLUSIONS: Our survival analysis shows divergent curves that favor MIE but have not yet reached statistical significance. The oncologic outcomes of MIE are comparable to that of ILE 2 years after resection.
Authors: Babatunde A Yerokun; Zhifei Sun; Chi-Fu Jeffrey Yang; Brian C Gulack; Paul J Speicher; Mohamed A Adam; Thomas A D'Amico; Mark W Onaitis; David H Harpole; Mark F Berry; Matthew G Hartwig Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2016-05-04 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Kfir Ben-David; George A Sarosi; Juan C Cendan; Drew Howard; Georgios Rossidis; Steven N Hochwald Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 4.584