Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis. Annals of thoracic surgery Yerokun, B. A., Sun, Z., Jeffrey Yang, C., Gulack, B. C., Speicher, P. J., Adam, M. A., D'Amico, T. A., Onaitis, M. W., Harpole, D. H., Berry, M. F., Hartwig, M. G. 2016; 102 (2): 416-423


The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes of minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy using population-level data.Multivariable regression modeling was used to determine predictors associated with the use of minimally invasive approaches for patients in the National Cancer Data Base who underwent resection of middle and distal clinical T13N03M0 esophageal cancers from 2010 to 2012. Perioperative outcomes and 3-year survival were compared between propensity-matched groups of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) or open esophagectomy (OE). A subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of using robotic-assisted operations as part of the minimally invasive approach.Among 4,266 patients included, 1,308 (30.6%) underwent MIE. It was more likely to be used in patients treated at academic (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 10.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2-33.1) or comprehensive cancer facilities (adjusted OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 2.6-21.1). Compared with propensity-matched patients who underwent OE, patients who underwent MIE had significantly more lymph nodes examined (15 versus 13; p = 0.016) and shorter hospital lengths of stay (10 days versus 11 days; p = 0.046) but similar resection margin positivity, readmission, and 30-day mortality (all p > 0.05). Survival was similar between the matched groups at 3 years for both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (p > 0.05). Compared with MIE without robotic assistance, use of a robotic approach was not associated with any significant differences in perioperative outcomes (p > 0.05).The use of minimally invasive techniques to perform esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is associated with modestly improved perioperative outcomes without compromising survival.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.02.078

View details for PubMedID 27157326