Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 55, Issue 11, pp 3031–3040 | Cite as

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy: Meta-Analysis of Outcomes

  • George Sgourakis
  • Ines Gockel
  • Arnold Radtke
  • Thomas J. Musholt
  • Stephan Timm
  • Andreas Rink
  • Achilleas Tsiamis
  • Constantine Karaliotas
  • Hauke Lang
Original Article



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.


Minimally 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.


  1. 1.
    Orringer MB. Substernal gastric bypass of the excluded thoracic esophagus for palliation of esophageal carcinoma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1975;70:836.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kelsen DP, Ginsberg R, Pajak TF, et al. Chemotherapy followed by surgery compared with surgery alone for localized esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1979–1984.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Luketich JD, Fernando HC, Christie NA, et al. Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagomyotomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72:1909–1912, discussion 1912–1913.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stein H, Siewert J. Improved prognosis of resected esophageal cancer. World J Surg. 2004;28:520–525.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Orringer MB, Marshall B, Iannettoni MD. Transhiatal esophagectomy: clinical experience and refinements. Ann Surg. 1999;230:392–400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wu P, Posner M. The role of surgery in the management of oesophageal cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2003;4:481–488.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smithers BM, Gotley DC, Martin I, Thomas JM. Comparison of the outcomes between open and minimally invasive esophagectomy. Ann Surg. 2007;245:232–240.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Braghetto I, Csendes A, Cardemil G, et al. Open transthoracic or transhiatal esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy in terms of morbidity, mortality and survival. Surg Endosc. 2006;20:1681–1686.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nguyen NT, Follette DM, Wolfe BM, et al. Comparison of minimally invasive esophagectomy with transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy. Arch Surg. 2000;135:920–925.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Law S, Fok M, Chu KM, Wong J. Thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Surgery. 1997;122:8–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kunisaki C, Hatori S, Imada T, et al. Video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy with a voice-controlled robot: the AESOP system. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2004;14:323–327.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Taguchi S, Osugi H, Higashino M, et al. Comparison of three-field esophagectomy for esophageal cancer incorporating open or thoracoscopic thoracotomy. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:1445–1450.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morris LG, Tran TN, DeLacure MD. Early experience with minimally invasive esophagectomy in head and neck surgical patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;137:947–949.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zingg U, McQuinn A, DiValentino D, et al. Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;87:911–919.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bresadola V, Terrosu G, Cojutti A, et al. Laparoscopic versus open gastroplasty in esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a comparative study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2006;16:63–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Valentí V, Fares R, Reynolds N, et al. Open and laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy for cancer of the oesophagus: analysis of resection margins and lymph nodes. Cir Esp. 2008;83:24–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Benzoni E, Terrosu G, Bresadola V, et al. A comparative study of the transhiatal laparoscopic approach versus laparoscopic gastric mobilisation and right open transthoracic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer management. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2007;16:395–401.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bernabe KQ, Bolton JS, Richardson WS. Laparoscopic hand-assisted versus open transhiatal esophagectomy: a case-control study. Surg Endosc. 2005;19:334–337. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354:1896–1900.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mahid SS, Hornung CA, Minor KS, et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis for the surgeon scientist. Br J Surg. 2006;93:1315–1324.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. 22.
    Review Manager (RevMan) [computer program]. Version 4.2 for Windows. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2003.Google Scholar
  23. 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. 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. 25.
    Rosenberg MS, Adams DC, Gurevitch J. MetaWin. Statistical software for meta-analysis. Version 2. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates; 2000.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van den Broek WT, Makay O, Berends FJ, et al. Laparoscopically assisted transhiatal resection for malignancies of the distal esophagus. Surg Endosc. 2004;18:812–817. Erratum in: Surg Endosc 2004;18:1292.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • George Sgourakis
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ines Gockel
    • 1
  • Arnold Radtke
    • 1
  • Thomas J. Musholt
    • 1
  • Stephan Timm
    • 1
  • Andreas Rink
    • 1
  • Achilleas Tsiamis
    • 3
  • Constantine Karaliotas
    • 2
  • Hauke Lang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of General and Abdominal SurgeryJohannes Gutenberg University HospitalMainzGermany
  2. 2.2nd Surgical Department and Surgical Oncology UnitKorgialenio–Benakio Red Cross HospitalAthensGreece
  3. 3.Department of Colorectal and Laparoscopic SurgeryJames Paget University HospitalNorfolkUK

Personalised recommendations