B P Müller-Stich1, P Probst1,2, H Nienhüser1, S Fazeli1, J Senft1, E Kalkum2, P Heger1,2, R Warschkow3, F Nickel1, A T Billeter1, P P Grimminger4, C Gutschow5, T S Dabakuyo-Yonli6, G Piessen7, M Paireder8, S F Schoppmann8, D L van der Peet9, M A Cuesta9, P van der Sluis10, R van Hillegersberg10, A H Hölscher11, M K Diener1, T Schmidt1. 1. Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, Ruprecht Karl University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. The Study Center of the German Surgical Society (SDGC), Ruprecht Karl University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Surgery, Kantonsspital, St. Gallen, Switzerland. 4. Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. 5. Department of Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 6. Epidemiology and Quality of Life Unit, INSERM 1231, Centre Georges François Leclerc, Dijon, France. 7. Department of Digestive and Oncological Surgery, Claude Huriez University Hospital, Lille, France. 8. Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 9. Gastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Vrije University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 10. Department of Surgical Oncology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 11. Contilia Centre for Oesophageal Diseases, Elisabeth Hospital, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) for oesophageal cancer may reduce surgical complications compared with open oesophagectomy. MIO is, however, technically challenging and may impair optimal oncological resection. The aim of the present study was to assess if MIO for cancer is beneficial. METHODS: A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL was performed and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIO with open oesophagectomy were included in a meta-analysis. Survival was analysed using individual patient data. Random-effects model was used for pooled estimates of perioperative effects. RESULTS: Among 3219 articles, six RCTs were identified including 822 patients. Three-year overall survival (56 (95 per cent c.i. 49 to 62) per cent for MIO versus 52 (95 per cent c.i. 44 to 60) per cent for open; P = 0.54) and disease-free survival (54 (95 per cent c.i. 47 to 61) per cent versus 50 (95 per cent c.i. 42 to 58) per cent; P = 0.38) were comparable. Overall complication rate was lower for MIO (odds ratio 0.33 (95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.53); P < 0.010) mainly due to fewer pulmonary complications (OR 0.44 (95 per cent c.i. 0.27 to 0.72); P < 0.010), including pneumonia (OR 0.41 (95 per cent c.i. 0.22 to 0.77); P < 0.010). CONCLUSION: MIO for cancer is associated with a lower risk of postoperative complications compared with open resection. Overall and disease-free survival are comparable for the two techniques. LAY SUMMARY: Oesophagectomy for cancer is associated with a high risk of complications. A minimally invasive approach might be less traumatic, leading to fewer complications and may also improve oncological outcome. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing minimally invasive to open oesophagectomy was performed. The analysis showed that the minimally invasive approach led to fewer postoperative complications, in particular, fewer pulmonary complications. Survival after surgery was comparable for the two techniques.
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) for oesophageal cancer may reduce surgical complications compared with open oesophagectomy. MIO is, however, technically challenging and may impair optimal oncological resection. The aim of the present study was to assess if MIO for cancer is beneficial. METHODS: A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL was performed and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MIO with open oesophagectomy were included in a meta-analysis. Survival was analysed using individual patient data. Random-effects model was used for pooled estimates of perioperative effects. RESULTS: Among 3219 articles, six RCTs were identified including 822 patients. Three-year overall survival (56 (95 per cent c.i. 49 to 62) per cent for MIO versus 52 (95 per cent c.i. 44 to 60) per cent for open; P = 0.54) and disease-free survival (54 (95 per cent c.i. 47 to 61) per cent versus 50 (95 per cent c.i. 42 to 58) per cent; P = 0.38) were comparable. Overall complication rate was lower for MIO (odds ratio 0.33 (95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.53); P < 0.010) mainly due to fewer pulmonary complications (OR 0.44 (95 per cent c.i. 0.27 to 0.72); P < 0.010), including pneumonia (OR 0.41 (95 per cent c.i. 0.22 to 0.77); P < 0.010). CONCLUSION: MIO for cancer is associated with a lower risk of postoperative complications compared with open resection. Overall and disease-free survival are comparable for the two techniques. LAY SUMMARY: Oesophagectomy for cancer is associated with a high risk of complications. A minimally invasive approach might be less traumatic, leading to fewer complications and may also improve oncological outcome. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing minimally invasive to open oesophagectomy was performed. The analysis showed that the minimally invasive approach led to fewer postoperative complications, in particular, fewer pulmonary complications. Survival after surgery was comparable for the two techniques.
Authors: Felipe Ángel Calvo Manuel; Javier Serrano; Claudio Solé; Mauricio Cambeiro; Jacobo Palma; Javier Aristu; Jose Luis Garcia-Sabrido; Miguel Angel Cuesta; Emilio Del Valle; Fernando Lapuente; Bernardino Miñana; Miguel Ángel Morcillo; Jose Manuel Asencio; Javier Pascau Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2022-09-28 Impact factor: 3.340
Authors: Benjamin Babic; Dolores T Müller; Jin-On Jung; Lars M Schiffmann; Paula Grisar; Thomas Schmidt; Seung-Hun Chon; Wolfgang Schröder; Christiane J Bruns; Hans F Fuchs Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: Fiorenzo V Angehrn; Kerstin J Neuschütz; Lana Fourie; Alexander Wilhelm; Silvio Däster; Christoph Ackermann; Markus von Flüe; Daniel C Steinemann; Martin Bolli Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 2.895