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
  • [41] Minimally Invasive Approaches Do Not Compromise Outcomes for Pneumonectomy: A Comparison Using the National Cancer Database
    Hennon, Mark W.
    Kumar, Abbinav
    Devisetty, Harshita
    D'Amico, Thomas
    Demmy, Todd L.
    Groman, Adrienne
    Yendamuri, Sai
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY, 2019, 14 (01) : 107 - 114
  • [42] Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Biere, S. S. A. Y.
    Cuesta, M. A.
    Van Der Peet, D. L.
    MINERVA CHIRURGICA, 2009, 64 (02) : 121 - 133
  • [43] Matched-pair comparisons of minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
    Wang, Wei
    Liu, Feiyu
    Hu, Tao
    Wang, Chaoyang
    MEDICINE, 2018, 97 (28)
  • [44] Minimally Invasive Versus Open Ivor-Lewis Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer or Cancer of the Gastroesophageal Junction: Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes and Long-term Survival Using Propensity Score Matching Analysis
    Knitter, Sebastin
    Andreou, Andreas
    Hofmann, Tobias
    Chopra, Sascha
    Denecke, Christian
    Thuss-patience, Peter C.
    Kroll, Dino
    Bahra, Marcus
    Schmelzle, Moritz
    Pratschke, Johann
    Biebl, Matthias
    ANTICANCER RESEARCH, 2021, 41 (07) : 3499 - 3510
  • [45] Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Provides Equivalent Oncologic Outcomes to Open Esophagectomy for Locally Advanced (Stage II or III) Esophageal Carcinoma
    Singh, Rajneesh K.
    Pham, Thai H.
    Diggs, Brian S.
    Perkins, Serene
    Hunter, John G.
    ARCHIVES OF SURGERY, 2011, 146 (06) : 711 - 714
  • [46] Lymphadenectomy along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve by a minimally invasive esophagectomy in the prone position for thoracic esophageal cancer
    Noshiro, Hirokazu
    Iwasaki, Hironori
    Kobayashi, Kiitiro
    Uchiyama, Akihiko
    Miyasaka, Yoshihiro
    Masatsugu, Toshihiro
    Koike, Kenta
    Miyazaki, Kouji
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2010, 24 (12): : 2965 - 2973
  • [47] Report from the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons database 2019: current surgical practice and perioperative outcomes of pulmonary metastasectomy
    Gonzalez, Michel
    Brunelli, Alessandro
    Szanto, Zalan
    Passani, Stefano
    Falcoz, Pierre-Emmanuel
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY, 2021, 59 (05) : 996 - 1003
  • [48] Long-term survival outcomes of esophageal cancer after minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy
    Pather, Keouna
    Mobley, Erin M.
    Guerrier, Christina
    Esma, Rhemar
    Kendall, Heather
    Awad, Ziad T.
    WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2022, 20 (01)
  • [49] Long-term survival outcomes of esophageal cancer after minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy
    Keouna Pather
    Erin M. Mobley
    Christina Guerrier
    Rhemar Esma
    Heather Kendall
    Ziad T. Awad
    World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 20
  • [50] Minimally Invasive Versus Open Approach for Cystectomy: Trends in the Utilization and Demographic or Clinical Predictors Using the National Cancer Database
    Bachman, Andrew G.
    Parker, Alexander A.
    Shaw, Marshall D.
    Cross, Brian W.
    Stratton, Kelly L.
    Cookson, Michael S.
    Patel, Sanjay G.
    UROLOGY, 2017, 103 : 99 - 105