World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 853–861 | Cite as

Propensity-Matched Analysis Comparing Survival After Hybrid Thoracoscopic–Laparotomy Esophagectomy and Complete Thoracoscopic–Laparoscopic Esophagectomy

  • Kun-Kun Li
  • Yin-Jian Wang
  • Xue-Hai Liu
  • Ru-Wen Wang
  • Yao-Guang Jiang
  • Wei GuoEmail author
Original Scientific Report



Hybrid thoracoscopic–laparotomy esophagectomy (hTE) and complete thoracoscopic–laparoscopic esophagectomy (cTLE) are the two most frequently used minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) procedures and are broadly utilized for esophageal cancer. We evaluated differences in short- and long-term outcomes between hTE and cTLE in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).


Patients who underwent MIE for ESCC between September 2009 and February 2016 were included in this retrospective study. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized to contrast the postoperative results of hTE and cTLE according to the obtained and analyzed pertinent patient features and postoperative variables. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used on possible predictors of survival.


Eighty-six well-balanced pairs of patients were available for outcome comparison after PSM. Compared to Group 1 (hTE), the patients in Group 2 (cTLE) had significantly shorter operative times and less intraoperative blood loss, but a higher number of retrieved nodes (p = 0.000, p = 0.003, and p = 0.000, respectively). The incidence of postoperative complications was 40.7% (70/172) and did not significantly differ between the two groups. The patients in Group 2 exhibited higher disease-free survival and disease-specific survival (DSS) than those in Group 1 (p = 0.048 and p = 0.041, respectively). Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analyses showed that pT stage, pN stage, differentiation grade, and the surgical procedure had significant HRs, which suggested that cTLE is associated with better DSS.


cTLE possibly shows better postoperative and oncologic outcomes than hTE.


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL et al (2015) Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 65:87–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zeng H, Zheng R, Guo Y et al (2015) Cancer survival in China, 2003–2005: a population-based study. Int J Cancer 136:1921–1930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cuschieri A, Shimi S, Banting S (1992) Endoscopic oesophagectomy through a right thoracoscopic approach. J R Coll Surg Edinb 37:7–11Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wullstein C, Ro-Papanikolaou HY, Klingebiel C et al (2015) Minimally invasive techniques and hybrid operations for esophageal cancer. Viszeralmedizin 31:331–336Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Masuda M, Okumura M, Doki Y et al (2016) Thoracic and cardiovascular surgery in Japan during 2014: annual report by the Japanese association for thoracic surgery. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 64:665–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O et al (2012) Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg 256:95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Biere SS, van Berge HM, Maas KW et al (2012) Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 379:1887–1892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barbour AP, Cormack OMM, Baker PJ et al (2017) Long-term health-related quality of life following esophagectomy: a nonrandomized comparison of thoracoscopically assisted and open surgery. Ann Surg 265:1158–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Khan M, Muzaffar A, Syed AA et al (2016) Changes in oncological outcomes: comparison of the conventional and minimally invasive esophagectomy, a single institution experience. Updates Surg 68:343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kauppi J, Rasanen J, Sihvo E et al (2015) Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: clinical outcomes for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma. Surg Endosc 29:2614–2619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dolan JP, Kaur T, Diggs BS et al (2013) Impact of comorbidity on outcomes and overall survival after open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc 27:4094–4103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Palazzo F, Rosato EL, Chaudhary A et al (2015) Minimally invasive esophagectomy provides significant survival advantage compared with open or hybrid esophagectomy for patients with cancers of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. J Am Coll Surg 220:672–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rice TW, Blackstone EH, Rusch VW (2010) 7th Edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual: esophagus and esophagogastric junction. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1721–1724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zou Y, Yan H, Liu X et al (2013) Lateral position could provide more excellent hemodynamic parameters during video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy for cancer. Surg Endosc 27:3720–3725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guo W, Zhao YP, Jiang YG et al (2012) Prevention of postoperative chylothorax with thoracic duct ligation during video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy for cancer. Surg Endosc 26:1332–1336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li KK, Wang YJ, Liu XH et al (2017) The effect of postoperative complications on survival of patients after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc 31:3475–3482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guo W, Xiao HL, Ma Z et al (2014) Should stage T2 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma be subclassified? Ann Surg Oncol 21:2540–2545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Austin PC (2014) A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score. Stat Med 33:1057–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wilke TJ, Bhirud AR, Lin C (2015) A review of the impact of preoperative chemoradiotherapy on outcome and postoperative complications in esophageal cancer patients. Am J Clin Oncol 38:415–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Law S, Wong KH, Kwok KF et al (2004) Predictive factors for postoperative pulmonary complications and mortality after esophagectomy for cancer. Ann Surg 240:791–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koen TA, Shapiro J, Looman CW et al (2014) Lymph node retrieval during esophagectomy with and without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: prognostic and therapeutic impact on survival. Ann Surg 260(786–792):792–793Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cao J, Yuan P, Wang L et al (2016) Clinical nomogram for predicting survival of esophageal cancer patients after esophagectomy. Sci Rep 6:26684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Talsma K, van Hagen P, Grotenhuis BA et al (2012) Comparison of the 6th and 7th editions of the UICC-AJCC TNM classification for esophageal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 19:2142–2148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gaur P, Hofstetter WL, Bekele BN et al (2010) Comparison between established and the worldwide esophageal cancer collaboration staging systems. Ann Thorac Surg 89:1797–1804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Davies AR, Pillai A, Sinha P et al (2014) Factors associated with early recurrence and death after esophagectomy for cancer. J Surg Oncol 109:459–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hu Y, Hu C, Zhang H et al (2010) How does the number of resected lymph nodes influence TNM staging and prognosis for esophageal carcinoma? Ann Surg Oncol 17:784–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu YP, Ma L, Wang SJ et al (2010) Prognostic value of lymph node metastases and lymph node ratio in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 36:155–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Baba Y, Watanabe M, Shigaki H et al (2013) Negative lymph-node count is associated with survival in patients with resected esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Surgery 153:234–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Daiko H, Fujita T (2015) Laparoscopic assisted versus open gastric pull-up following thoracoscopic esophagectomy: a cohort study. Int J Surg 19:61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Guo W, Zou Y, Ma Z et al (2013) One surgeon’s learning curve for video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer with the patient in lateral position: How many cases are needed to reach competence? Surg Endosc 27:1346–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Oshikiri T, Yasuda T, Hasegawa H et al (2016) Short-term outcomes and one surgeon’s learning curve for thoracoscopic esophagectomy performed with the patient in the prone position. Surg Today 47:313–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Feo CV, Villaflor VM, Patti MG (2011) Should esophageal resections for cancer be performed in high-volume centers only? Updates Surg 63:147–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kun-Kun Li
    • 1
  • Yin-Jian Wang
    • 1
  • Xue-Hai Liu
    • 1
  • Ru-Wen Wang
    • 1
  • Yao-Guang Jiang
    • 1
  • Wei Guo
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Thoracic Surgery, Daping Hospital and Research Institute of SurgeryArmy Military Medical UniversityChongqingChina

Personalised recommendations