Matched-pair comparisons of minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer

Abstract

Background:Open esophagectomy (OE) with radical lymphadenectomy is known as one of the most invasive digestive surgeries with the high rate of complications. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has developed very rapidly and has formed several available technical approaches. This systematic review and meta-analysis is aiming at how beneficial, and to what extent MIE resection really will be.Methods:A systematic literature search will be performed through May 31, 2018 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar for relevant articles published in any language. Randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, and propensity score matched comparative studies will be included. If data are sufficient, subgroup analyses will be conducted in different surgical procedures of MIE.Results:The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Conclusion:This will be the first systematic review and meta-analysis using data of randomized controlled, prospective, and propensity score matched comparative studies to compare the outcomes between MIE and OE updating to May 31, 2018.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted, Video-Assisted, and Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

“…Open transthoracic esophagectomy (OE), traditionally the main surgical approach, 6 , 7 is a complex operation with morbidity and mortality of nearly 50% and 5%, respectively. 8 Minimally invasive approaches have emerged, with laparoscopic and thoracoscopic techniques offering advantages that include fewer postoperative complications and possibly improved long-term oncologic outcomes compared with open surgery.…”

A Comparative Study between the Postoperative Complications of Stripping Esophagectomy and Classic (Orringer's Technique) Esophagectomy

“…Despite overall decrease in postoperative complication achieved by nasogastric stripping, comparison with other minimally invasive techniques via laparoscopy or thoracoscopy, Ivor Lewis and Mckeown esophagectomy, can provide a decisive answer. 31 Further reduction in complications and mortality rate are likely to be achieved by integrating these methods. 32 33 34 …”

“…Despite overall decrease in postoperative complication achieved by nasogastric stripping, comparison with other minimally invasive techniques via laparoscopy or thoraco-scopy, Ivor Lewis and Mckeown esophagectomy, can provide a decisive answer. 31 Further reduction in complications and mortality rate are likely to be achieved by integrating these methods. [32][33][34] Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.…”

Fairly assessing unfairness: An exploration of gender disparities in informal entrepreneurship amongst academics in business schools

“…However, comparative studies in medicine have a long history of strategies to deal with unbalanced groups of respondents/patients (Sinclair et al 2011;Roick et al 2007). One of the most powerful strategies to increase the comparability of independent groups of respondents is called the "pair-matched" technique (Sahai and Khurshid 1996;Zhang et al 2014;Wang et al 2018;Zimmermann et al 2020). In this technique, any subject from an intervention group is matched with another subject in a control group who shares pertinent common characteristics before the comparison of the studied phenomenon/intervention (Bowling and Ebrahim 2005).…”