Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Comparison of Early Surgical Outcomes From The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database

被引:171
|
作者
Sihag, Smita
Kosinski, Andrzej S.
Gaissert, Henning A.
Wright, Cameron D.
Schipper, Paul H.
机构
[1] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Dept Thorac Surg, Boston, MA 02114 USA
[2] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Biostat & Bioinformat, Durham, NC USA
[3] Duke Clin Res Inst, Durham, NC USA
[4] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Cardiothorac Surg, Portland, OR 97201 USA
关键词
IVOR-LEWIS ESOPHAGECTOMY; SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES; PERIOPERATIVE OUTCOMES; VOLUME; MORTALITY; LOBECTOMY;
D O I
10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.09.095
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background. Open esophagectomy results in significant morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has become increasingly popular at specialized centers with the aim of improving perioperative outcomes. Numerous single-institution studies suggest MIE may offer lower short-term morbidity. The two approaches are compared using a large, multi institutional database. Methods. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) National Database (v2.081) was queried for all resections performed for esophageal cancer between 2008 and 2011 (n = 3,780). Minimally invasive approaches included both transhiatal (n = 214) and Ivor Lewis (n = 600), and these were compared directly with open transhiatal (n = 1,065) and Ivor Lewis (n = 1,291) procedures, respectively. Thirty-day outcomes were examined using nonparametric statistical testing. Results. Both open and MIE groups were similar in terms of preoperative risk factors. Morbidity and all cause mortality were equivalent at 62.2% and 3.8%. MIE was associated with longer median procedure times (443.0 versus 312.0 minutes; p < 0.001), but a shorter median length of hospital stay (9.0 versus 10.0 days; p < 0.001). Patients who underwent MIE had higher rates of reoperation (9.9% versus 4.4%; p < 0.001) and empyema (4.1% versus 1.8%; p < 0.001). Open technique led to an increased rate of wound infections (6.3% versus 2.3%; p < 0.001), postoperative transfusion (18.7% versus 14.1%; p = 0.002), and ileus (4.5% versus 2.2%; p = 0.002). Propensity score-matched analysis confirmed these findings. High-and low-volume centers had similar outcomes. Conclusions. Early results from the STS National Database indicate that MIE is safe, with comparable rates of morbidity and mortality as open technique. Longer procedure times and a higher rate of reoperation following MIE may reflect a learning curve. (C) 2016 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons
引用
收藏
页码:1281 / 1289
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Major Postoperative Complications in Esophageal Cancer After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Compared With Open Esophagectomy: An Updated Meta-analysis
    Pu, Shengyu
    Chen, Heyan
    Zhou, Can
    Yu, Shibo
    Liao, Xiaoqin
    Zhu, Lizhe
    He, Jianjun
    Wang, Bin
    JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH, 2021, 257 : 554 - 571
  • [22] Sex differences in early outcomes after lung cancer resection: Analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Database
    Tong, Betty C.
    Kosinski, Andrzej S.
    Burfeind, William R., Jr.
    Onaitis, Mark W.
    Berry, Mark F.
    Harpole, David H., Jr.
    D'Amico, Thomas A.
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2014, 148 (01) : 13 - 18
  • [23] Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in Esophageal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy
    Warner, Susanne
    Chang, Yu-Hui
    Paripati, Harshita
    Ross, Helen
    Ashman, Jonathan
    Harold, Kristi
    Day, Ryan
    Stucky, Chee-Chee
    Rule, William
    Jaroszewski, Dawn
    ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2014, 97 (02) : 439 - 445
  • [24] Outcomes of Minimally Invasive and Robot-Assisted Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer
    Banks, Kian C.
    Hsu, Diana S.
    Velotta, Jeffrey B.
    CANCERS, 2022, 14 (15)
  • [25] Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy after neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis
    Jin, Zixian
    Zhu, Kanghao
    Sun, Jiajing
    Zhang, Jian
    Zhang, Bo
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOTHORACIC SURGERY, 2023, 18 (01)
  • [26] Robotic Versus Conventional Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer A Meta-analysis
    Zhang, Yajie
    Dong, Dong
    Cao, Yuqin
    Huang, Maosheng
    Li, Jian
    Zhang, Jiahao
    Lin, Jules
    Sarkaria, Inderpal S.
    Toni, Lerut
    David, Rice
    He, Jie
    Li, Hecheng
    ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2023, 278 (01) : 39 - 50
  • [27] The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database: Establishing Generalizability to National Lung Cancer Resection Outcomes
    LaPar, Damien J.
    Bhamidipati, Castigliano M.
    Lau, Christine L.
    Jones, David R.
    Kozower, Benjamin D.
    ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2012, 94 (01) : 216 - 221
  • [28] Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Esagian, Stepan M.
    Ziogas, Ioannis A.
    Skarentzos, Konstantinos
    Katsaros, Ioannis
    Tsoulfas, Georgios
    Molena, Daniela
    Karamouzis, Michalis V.
    Rouvelas, Ioannis
    Nilsson, Magnus
    Schizas, Dimitrios
    CANCERS, 2022, 14 (13)
  • [29] Open Versus Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Trends of Utilization and Associated Outcomes in England
    Lazzarino, Antonio Ivan
    Nagpal, Kamal
    Bottle, Alex
    Faiz, Omar
    Moorthy, Krishna
    Aylin, Paul
    ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2010, 252 (02) : 292 - 298
  • [30] Predictors of major morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database risk adjustment model
    Wright, Cameron D.
    Kucharczuk, John C.
    O'Brien, Sean M.
    Grab, Joshua D.
    Allen, Mark S.
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2009, 137 (03) : 587 - 596