Literature DB >> 32388717

Propensity score-matched comparison between open and minimal invasive hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Arnulf H Hölscher1,2, Tom R DeMeester3, Henner Schmidt4, Felix Berlth5, Elfriede Bollschweiler6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study compared the outcome between patients who had an open and those who had a hybrid esophagectomy for T1 or T3 esophageal adenocarcinoma (eAC). No clear data are available concerning this question based on T-category.
METHODS: Two groups of patients with esophagectomy and high intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy for eAC were analyzed: hybrid (laparoscopy + right thoracotomy) (n = 835) and open (laparotomy + right thoracotomy) (n = 188). Outcome criteria were 30- and 90-day mortality, R0-resection rate (R0), number of resected lymph nodes (rLNs), and 5-year survival rate (5y-SR). For each type of surgery, three patient groups were analyzed: pT1-carcinoma (group-1), cT3Nx and neoadjuvant chemoradiation (group-2), and pT3N0-3 without neoadjuvant therapy (group-3). The comparison was based on a propensity score matching in relation of 1:2 for open versus hybrid.
RESULTS: In group-1 (38 open vs 76 hybrid) R0-resection (100%), 30-day mortality (0%), 90-day mortality (2.6% vs 0%), and rLNs (median 29.5 vs 28.5) were not significantly different. The pN0-rate was 76% in the open and 92% in the hybrid group (p = 0.036). Accordingly, the 5y-SR was 69% and 87% (p = 0.016), but the prognosis of the subgroups pT1pN0 or pT1pN+ was not significantly different between open or hybrid. In group-2 (68 open vs 135 hybrid) R0-resection (97%), 30-day (0% vs 0.7%) and 90-day (4%) mortality, rLNs (28.5 vs 26), and 5y-SR (36% vs 41%) were not significantly different. In group-3 (37 open vs 75 hybrid) R0, postoperative mortality, rLNs, and 5y-SR were not significantly different.
CONCLUSION: In a propensity score-matched comparison of patients with an open or hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma the quality of oncologic resection, postoperative mortality and prognosis are not different.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adenocarcinoma; Esophageal cancer; Hybrid esophagectomy; Open esophagectomy; Prognosis; Squamous cell carcinoma

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32388717     DOI: 10.1007/s00423-020-01882-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg        ISSN: 1435-2443            Impact factor:   3.445


  2 in total

1.  Long-term outcome of open versus hybrid minimally invasive Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy: a propensity score matched study†.

Authors:  Philippe Rinieri; Moussa Ouattara; Geoffrey Brioude; Anderson Loundou; Henri de Lesquen; Delphine Trousse; Christophe Doddoli; Pascal Alexandre Thomas; Xavier Benoit D'Journo
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 4.191

2.  Robot-Assisted Hybrid Esophagectomy Is Associated with a Shorter Length of Stay Compared to Conventional Transthoracic Esophagectomy: A Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Hans C Rolff; Rikard B Ambrus; Mohammed Belmouhand; Michael P Achiam; Marianne Wegmann; Mette Siemsen; Steen C Kofoed; Lars B Svendsen
Journal:  Minim Invasive Surg       Date:  2017-12-06
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.