Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy: Meta-Analysis of Outcomes
- 711 Downloads
A meta-analysis of the current literature was performed to compare the perioperative outcome measures and oncological impact between minimally invasive and open esophagectomy.
Using the electronic databases Medline, Embase, Pubmed and the Cochrane Library, we performed a meta-analysis pooling the effects of outcomes of 1,008 patients enrolled into eight comparative studies, using classic and modern meta-analytic methods.
Two comparisons were considered for this systematic review: (I) open thoracotomy vs. VATS/laparoscopy esophagectomy and (II) open thoracotomy vs. VATS esophagectomy. In comparison I: both procedures report equally comparable outcomes (removed lymph nodes, 30-day mortality, 3-year survival) with the exception of overall morbidity (P = 0.038; in favor of the MIE arm) and anastomotic stricture (P < 0.001; in favor of the open thoracotomy arm). In comparison II: No differences were noted between treatment arms concerning postoperative outcomes and survival.
In summary, both arms were comparable with regard to perioperative results and prognosis. Further prospective comparative or randomized-controlled trials focusing on the oncological impact of MIE are needed.
KeywordsMinimally invasive esophagectomy Open esophagectomy Meta-analysis Evidence based medicine Publication bias Barrett’s esophagus
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no financial or personal relationships with persons or organisations that could inappropriately influence this work.
- 21.Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd edn. London: BMJ Books; 2001.Google Scholar
- 22.Review Manager (RevMan) [computer program]. Version 4.2 for Windows. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2003.Google Scholar
- 23.Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.6 [updated September 2006]. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2006, Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 24.Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, et al. Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:31.Google Scholar
- 25.Rosenberg MS, Adams DC, Gurevitch J. MetaWin. Statistical software for meta-analysis. Version 2. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates; 2000.Google Scholar