BACKGROUND: Open esophagectomy (OE) in elderly patients with esophageal cancer is hazardous due to high surgical mortality and limited survival. The aim of this study was to explore whether minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has perioperative or long-term benefits in elderly patients with esophageal cancer compared with OE. METHODS: Between February 2005 and June 2013, 407 patients older than 70 years underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, including 89 who received MIE and 318 who received OE. A retrospective pair-matched study was performed to compare 116 patients (58 pairs) who underwent either OE or MIE. Patients were matched by age, sex, comorbidity, tumor location, histology, TNM stage, and operative approach. Perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The overall incidence of postoperative complications was significantly lower in the MIE group than in the OE group (37.9 vs. 60.3 %, P = 0.016), especially incidence of pulmonary complications (20.7 vs. 39.7 %, P = 0.026). The mean length of hospital stay was also significantly shorter (10 days [range 7-70] vs. 12 days [range 8-106], P = 0.032). The perioperative mortality rate trended lower in the MIE group but was not significantly different (3.4 vs. 8.6 %, P = 0.435). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the median disease-specific survival time in the MIE group was significantly longer than in the OE group (>27 months [range 1-82] vs. 24 months [range 1-99], P = 0.003). No difference was found in overall survival (39 ± 8.9 vs. 22 ± 3.4 months, P = 0.070). CONCLUSION: In surgical management of elderly patients with esophageal cancer, MIE is associated with lower rates of morbidity and pulmonary complications as well as longer disease-specific survival time. Whether it provides benefit to patients' long-term survival requires further research.
BACKGROUND: Open esophagectomy (OE) in elderly patients with esophageal cancer is hazardous due to high surgical mortality and limited survival. The aim of this study was to explore whether minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has perioperative or long-term benefits in elderly patients with esophageal cancer compared with OE. METHODS: Between February 2005 and June 2013, 407 patients older than 70 years underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, including 89 who received MIE and 318 who received OE. A retrospective pair-matched study was performed to compare 116 patients (58 pairs) who underwent either OE or MIE. Patients were matched by age, sex, comorbidity, tumor location, histology, TNM stage, and operative approach. Perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The overall incidence of postoperative complications was significantly lower in the MIE group than in the OE group (37.9 vs. 60.3 %, P = 0.016), especially incidence of pulmonary complications (20.7 vs. 39.7 %, P = 0.026). The mean length of hospital stay was also significantly shorter (10 days [range 7-70] vs. 12 days [range 8-106], P = 0.032). The perioperative mortality rate trended lower in the MIE group but was not significantly different (3.4 vs. 8.6 %, P = 0.435). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the median disease-specific survival time in the MIE group was significantly longer than in the OE group (>27 months [range 1-82] vs. 24 months [range 1-99], P = 0.003). No difference was found in overall survival (39 ± 8.9 vs. 22 ± 3.4 months, P = 0.070). CONCLUSION: In surgical management of elderly patients with esophageal cancer, MIE is associated with lower rates of morbidity and pulmonary complications as well as longer disease-specific survival time. Whether it provides benefit to patients' long-term survival requires further research.
Authors: S Kinugasa; M Tachibana; H Yoshimura; D K Dhar; M Shibakita; S Ohno; H Kubota; R Masunaga; N Nagasue Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: James D Luketich; Arjun Pennathur; Omar Awais; Ryan M Levy; Samuel Keeley; Manisha Shende; Neil A Christie; Benny Weksler; Rodney J Landreneau; Ghulam Abbas; Matthew J Schuchert; Katie S Nason Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Surya S A Y Biere; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Kirsten W Maas; Luigi Bonavina; Camiel Rosman; Josep Roig Garcia; Suzanne S Gisbertz; Jean H G Klinkenbijl; Markus W Hollmann; Elly S M de Lange; H Jaap Bonjer; Donald L van der Peet; Miguel A Cuesta Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: B B Pultrum; D J Bosch; M W N Nijsten; M G G Rodgers; H Groen; J P J Slaets; J Th M Plukker Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-02-24 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Kamal Nagpal; Kamran Ahmed; Amit Vats; Danny Yakoub; David James; Hutan Ashrafian; Ara Darzi; Krishna Moorthy; Thanos Athanasiou Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Kota Sahara; Anghela Z Paredes; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; J Madison Hyer; Katiuscha Merath; Lu Wu; Rittal Mehta; Eliza W Beal; Susan White; Itaru Endo; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-02-04 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Negar Ahmadi; Agnes Crnic; Andrew J Seely; Sudhir R Sundaresan; P James Villeneuve; Donna E Maziak; Farid M Shamji; Sebastien Gilbert Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 4.584