Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophageal Resection

Straatman, Jennifer; Wielen, Nicole van der; Cuesta, Miguel A.; Daams, Freek; García, Josep Roig; Bonavina, Luigi; Rosman, Camiel; Henegouwen, Mark I. van Berge; Gisbertz, Suzanne S.; Peet, Donald L. van der

doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000002171

Cited by 447 publications

(187 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

164

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 24 studies with 7117 patients were involved in the analysis of all‐cause RCs. Figure a shows that the patients who underwent MIE experienced less postoperative RCs as compared to those who underwent OE (OR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.41, 0.78; P = <0.001).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postoperative short‐term outcomes of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize the available evidence regarding short-term outcomes between minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE). Methods: Studies were identified by searching databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library up to March 2019 without language restrictions. Results of these searches were filtered according to a set of eligibility criteria and analyzed in line with PRISMA guidelines. Results: There were 33 studies included with a total of 13 269 patients in our review, out of which 4948 cases were of MIE and 8321 cases were of OE. The pooled results suggested that MIE had a better outcome regarding all-cause respiratory complications (RCs) (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.41-0.78, P = <0.001), inhospital duration (SMD = −0.51; 95% CI = −0.78−0.24; P = <0.001), and blood loss (SMD = −1.44; 95% CI = −1.95−0.93; P = <0.001). OE was associated with shorter duration of operation time, while no statistically significant differences were observed regarding other outcomes. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed for a number of different postoperative events. Conclusions: Our study indicated that MIE had more favorable outcomes than OE from the perspective of short-term outcomes. Further large-scale, multicenter randomized control trials are needed to explore the long-term survival outcomes after MIE versus OE.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postoperative short‐term outcomes of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Esophageal cancer has always been associated with a poor survival, but over the past decades the survival rate for patients undergoing surgery has significantly improved with the introduction of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy [1][2][3]. Improved perioperative care, the implementation of enhanced recovery programs and the introduction of minimally invasive techniques, have further contributed to a reduced postoperative mortality and morbidity [4][5][6][7][8]. With these improvements and an increase in survival rates, patients' quality of life and long-term sequelae-such as development of micronutrient deficiencies-of this intensive treatment are becoming more relevant [9][10][11][12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clinically relevant micronutrient deficiencies commonly found in these studies include iron and vitamins A, B1, B12, D and E. It has been hypothesized that micronutrient deficiencies may also play an important role in quality of life after an esophagectomy for cancer, due to the anatomical changes made to the upper gastrointestinal tract. These anatomical changes, wherein the stomach is most commonly used as the conduit to replace the resected esophagus, often entail high morbidity [4][5][6][7]. Similar to bariatric surgery, these changes may be accompanied by adverse gastrointestinal symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, regurgitation, diarrhea, dumping or loss of appetite and reduced intake, which may contribute to further weight loss and malnutrition or anorexia [9][10][11][12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Micronutrient Deficiencies Following Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Cancer

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decades, survival rates for patients with resectable esophageal cancer have improved significantly. Consequently, the sequelae of having a gastric conduit, such as development of micronutrient deficiencies, become increasingly apparent. This study investigated postoperative micronutrient trends in the follow-up of patients following a minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for cancer. Patients were included if they had at least one postoperative evaluation of iron, ferritin, vitamins B1, B6, B12, D, folate or methylmalonic acid. Data were available in 83 of 95 patients. Of these, 78.3% (65/83) had at least one and 37.3% (31/83) had more than one micronutrient deficiency at a median of 6.1 months (interquartile range (IQR) 5.4-7.5) of follow-up. Similar to the results found in previous studies, most common deficiencies identified were: iron, vitamin B12 and vitamin D. In addition, folate deficiency and anemia were detected in a substantial amount of patients in this cohort. At 24.8 months (IQR 19.4-33.1) of follow-up, micronutrient deficiencies were still common, however, most deficiencies normalized following supplementation on indication. In conclusion, patients undergoing a MIE are at risk of developing micronutrient deficiencies as early as 6 up to 24 months after surgery and should therefore be routinely checked and supplemented when needed.

show abstract

“…The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (E2202) study demonstrated that minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE; esophagectomy via the thoracoscopic and laparoscopic approach) is feasible and safe with low perioperative morbidity and mortality and good oncological result [47]. The TIME trial (traditional invasive vs. MIE, a multicenter, randomized trial) presented no differences in disease-free and overall 3-year survival for OE and MIE; therefore, this study supports the use of minimally invasive surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal cancer [48]. In Japan, Takeuchi H et al [49] compared short-term outcomes between OE and MI esophagectomy using the Japanese national clinical database.…”

Section: Forefront Of Esophageal Cancer Treatment (Core Symposium 1 Amentioning

confidence: 54%

Interaction between Medical Treatment and Minimally Invasive Surgical Treatment for the Malignancies of the Digestive Tract

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, endoscopic diagnosis and treatment methods for early cancer in the digestive tract have made rapid progress. As for surgery, laparoscopic and thoracoscopic techniques have achieved rapidly advancing development in the last 2 decades. Early detection of the malignant lesion and the evolution of endoscopic and surgical device enabled in performing the minimally invasive surgery. Collaboration of medical treatment and minimally invasive surgery for advanced cancer is ongoing in the case of some conditions and in a few institutes. In this review, the contents of the core symposia on “Interaction between medical treatment and minimally invasive surgical treatment for the malignancies of the digestive tract", held at the 11, 12 and 13th annual meeting of the Japanese Gastroenterological Association, are summarized. At each annual meeting, the core symposium focused primarily on gastric, colorectal, and esophageal cancer treatment. For gastric cancer, endoscopic resection and laparoscopic surgery were 2 important key words. For colorectal cancer, multidisciplinary therapy was a major key word. And for esophageal cancer, endoscopic resection, chemoradiotherapy, thoracoscopic surgery and salvage surgery were key words. Patients’ survival and quality of life are expected to further advance as a result of the collaboration of such therapeutic modalities.

show abstract

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophageal Resection

Abstract: The study presented here depicted no differences in disease-free and overall 3-year survival for open and MI esophagectomy. These results, together with short-term results, further support the use of minimally invasive surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal cancer.

Cited by 447 publications

References 18 publications

Postoperative short‐term outcomes of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis

Postoperative short‐term outcomes of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis

Micronutrient Deficiencies Following Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Cancer

Interaction between Medical Treatment and Minimally Invasive Surgical Treatment for the Malignancies of the Digestive Tract

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About