Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis

Kamal Nagpal, Kamran Ahmed, Amit Vats, Danny Yakoub, David James, Hutan Ashrafian, Ara Darzi, Krishna Moorthy, Thanos Athanasiou

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

216 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction Open esophagectomy for cancer is a major oncological procedure, associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Recently, thoracoscopic procedures have offered a potentially advantageous alternative because of less operative trauma compared with thoracotomy. The aim of this study was to utilize meta-analysis to compare outcomes of open esophagectomy with those of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE). Methods Literature search was performed using Medline,Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases for comparative studies assessing different techniques of esophagectomy. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed. Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day mortality and anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes included operative outcomes,other postoperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes in terms of lymph nodes retrieved. Results A total of 12 studies were included in the analysis. Studies included a total of 672 patients for MIE and HMIE, and 612 for open esophagectomy. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality; however, MIE had lower blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and reduced total morbidity and respiratory complications. For all otheroutcomes, there was no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusion Minimally invasive esophagectomy is a safe alternative to the open technique. Patients undergoing MIE may benefit from shorter hospital stay, and lower respiratory complications and total morbidity compared with open esophagectomy. Multicenter, prospective large randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these findings in order to base practice on sound clinical evidence.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1621-1629
Number of pages9
JournalSurgical Endoscopy
Volume24
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Esophagectomy
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
Esophageal Neoplasms
Meta-Analysis
Morbidity
Mortality
Length of Stay
Anastomotic Leak
Thoracotomy
Libraries
Randomized Controlled Trials
Lymph Nodes

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery

Cite this

Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis. / Nagpal, Kamal; Ahmed, Kamran; Vats, Amit; Yakoub, Danny; James, David; Ashrafian, Hutan; Darzi, Ara; Moorthy, Krishna; Athanasiou, Thanos.

In: Surgical Endoscopy, Vol. 24, No. 7, 01.01.2010, p. 1621-1629.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Nagpal, K, Ahmed, K, Vats, A, Yakoub, D, James, D, Ashrafian, H, Darzi, A, Moorthy, K & Athanasiou, T 2010, 'Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis', Surgical Endoscopy, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 1621-1629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0822-7
Nagpal, Kamal ; Ahmed, Kamran ; Vats, Amit ; Yakoub, Danny ; James, David ; Ashrafian, Hutan ; Darzi, Ara ; Moorthy, Krishna ; Athanasiou, Thanos. / Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis. In: Surgical Endoscopy. 2010 ; Vol. 24, No. 7. pp. 1621-1629.
@article{9058f1f90bb0419c8635c081b7693d3d,
title = "Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis",
abstract = "Introduction Open esophagectomy for cancer is a major oncological procedure, associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Recently, thoracoscopic procedures have offered a potentially advantageous alternative because of less operative trauma compared with thoracotomy. The aim of this study was to utilize meta-analysis to compare outcomes of open esophagectomy with those of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE). Methods Literature search was performed using Medline,Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases for comparative studies assessing different techniques of esophagectomy. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed. Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day mortality and anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes included operative outcomes,other postoperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes in terms of lymph nodes retrieved. Results A total of 12 studies were included in the analysis. Studies included a total of 672 patients for MIE and HMIE, and 612 for open esophagectomy. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality; however, MIE had lower blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and reduced total morbidity and respiratory complications. For all otheroutcomes, there was no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusion Minimally invasive esophagectomy is a safe alternative to the open technique. Patients undergoing MIE may benefit from shorter hospital stay, and lower respiratory complications and total morbidity compared with open esophagectomy. Multicenter, prospective large randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these findings in order to base practice on sound clinical evidence.",
author = "Kamal Nagpal and Kamran Ahmed and Amit Vats and Danny Yakoub and David James and Hutan Ashrafian and Ara Darzi and Krishna Moorthy and Thanos Athanasiou",
year = "2010",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00464-009-0822-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "1621--1629",
journal = "Surgical Endoscopy",
issn = "0930-2794",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis

AU - Nagpal, Kamal

AU - Ahmed, Kamran

AU - Vats, Amit

AU - Yakoub, Danny

AU - James, David

AU - Ashrafian, Hutan

AU - Darzi, Ara

AU - Moorthy, Krishna

AU - Athanasiou, Thanos

PY - 2010/1/1

Y1 - 2010/1/1

N2 - Introduction Open esophagectomy for cancer is a major oncological procedure, associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Recently, thoracoscopic procedures have offered a potentially advantageous alternative because of less operative trauma compared with thoracotomy. The aim of this study was to utilize meta-analysis to compare outcomes of open esophagectomy with those of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE). Methods Literature search was performed using Medline,Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases for comparative studies assessing different techniques of esophagectomy. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed. Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day mortality and anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes included operative outcomes,other postoperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes in terms of lymph nodes retrieved. Results A total of 12 studies were included in the analysis. Studies included a total of 672 patients for MIE and HMIE, and 612 for open esophagectomy. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality; however, MIE had lower blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and reduced total morbidity and respiratory complications. For all otheroutcomes, there was no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusion Minimally invasive esophagectomy is a safe alternative to the open technique. Patients undergoing MIE may benefit from shorter hospital stay, and lower respiratory complications and total morbidity compared with open esophagectomy. Multicenter, prospective large randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these findings in order to base practice on sound clinical evidence.

AB - Introduction Open esophagectomy for cancer is a major oncological procedure, associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Recently, thoracoscopic procedures have offered a potentially advantageous alternative because of less operative trauma compared with thoracotomy. The aim of this study was to utilize meta-analysis to compare outcomes of open esophagectomy with those of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE). Methods Literature search was performed using Medline,Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases for comparative studies assessing different techniques of esophagectomy. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed. Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day mortality and anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes included operative outcomes,other postoperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes in terms of lymph nodes retrieved. Results A total of 12 studies were included in the analysis. Studies included a total of 672 patients for MIE and HMIE, and 612 for open esophagectomy. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality; however, MIE had lower blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and reduced total morbidity and respiratory complications. For all otheroutcomes, there was no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusion Minimally invasive esophagectomy is a safe alternative to the open technique. Patients undergoing MIE may benefit from shorter hospital stay, and lower respiratory complications and total morbidity compared with open esophagectomy. Multicenter, prospective large randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these findings in order to base practice on sound clinical evidence.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77955661191&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77955661191&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00464-009-0822-7

DO - 10.1007/s00464-009-0822-7

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 1621

EP - 1629

JO - Surgical Endoscopy

JF - Surgical Endoscopy

SN - 0930-2794

IS - 7

ER -