Comparison of the Outcomes Between Open and Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy

B. Mark Smithers(Princess Alexandra Hospital), D. C. Gotley, Ian Martin, Janine Thomas
Annals of Surgery
January 17, 2007
Cited by 390Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

In Brief Objective: We report patient outcomes from esophageal resection with respect to morbidity and cancer survival comparing open thoracotomy and laparotomy (Open), with a thoracoscopic/laparotomy approach (Thoracoscopic-Assisted) and a total thoracoscopic/laparoscopic approach (Total MIE). Methods: From a prospective database of all patients managed with cancer of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction, patients who had a resection using one of three techniques were analyzed to assess postoperative variables, adequacy of cancer clearance, and survival. Results: The number of patients for each procedure was as follows: Open, 114; Thoracoscopic-Assisted, 309; and Total MIE, 23. The groups were comparable with respect to preoperative variables. The differences in the postoperative variables were: less median blood loss in the Thoracoscopic-Assisted (400 mL) and Total MIE (300 mL) groups versus Open (600 mL); longer time for Total MIE (330 minutes) versus Thoracoscopic-Assisted (285 minutes) and Open (300 minutes); longer median time in hospital for Open (14 days) versus Thoracoscopic-Assisted (13 days), Total MIE (11 days) and less stricture formation in the Open (6.1%) versus Thoracoscopic-Assisted (21.6%), Total MIE (36%). There were no differences in lymph node retrieval for each of the approaches. Open had more stage III patients (65.8%) versus Thoracoscopic-Assisted (34.4%), Total MIE (52.1%). There was no difference in survival when the groups were compared stage for stage for overall median or 3-year survival. Conclusion: Minimally invasive techniques to resect the esophagus in patients with cancer were confirmed to be safe and comparable to an open approach with respect to postoperative recovery and cancer survival. We compared the outcomes from esophageal resection for cancer where the approaches were: an open thoracotomy and laparotomy or with minimally invasive techniques used in the thorax and abdomen. There was no major difference in morbidity, mortality, and clearance of the tumor. Cancer survival was not different for each of the approaches.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis