Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 326–332 | Cite as

Short-Term Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive and Open Esophagectomy: A Population-Based Study from Finland and Sweden

  • Joonas H. Kauppila
  • Olli Helminen
  • Ville Kytö
  • Jarmo Gunn
  • Jesper Lagergren
  • Eero Sihvo
Gastrointestinal Oncology



Population-based studies comparing minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) relative to 90-day postoperative mortality are needed.


The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes following these two techniques for esophageal cancer.


Patients undergoing MIE (n = 217) or OE (n = 1397) for esophageal cancer between 2007 and 2014 were identified from nationwide complete registries in Finland and Sweden. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality, and secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and 30- and 90-day readmission rate. Results were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, tumor histology, surgery year, and country.


Ninety-day mortality rates were 4.1% (n = 9 of 217) for MIE and 6.8% (n = 95 of 1397) for OE; 90-day mortality was halved after MIE [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24–0.99]. There was no difference in 30-day mortality (adjusted HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.29–2.66). Median hospital stay was 15 days for MIE and 16 days for OE (adjusted β −0.17, standard error 0.08, p = 0.030). The 30-day readmission rates were 8.9% after MIE and 12.0% after OE (adjusted HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34–0.94), while the 90-day readmission rates were 28.8% and 33.6%, respectively, without a statistically significant difference (adjusted HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61–1.10).


This population-based study from Finland and Sweden revealed lower 90-day mortality, shorter hospital stay, and lower 30-day readmission rates after MIE compared with OE for esophageal cancer. These findings support the use of minimally invasive approaches.



This study was supported by grants from Sigrid Juselius Foundation (JHK), Orion Research Foundation (JHK), Swedish Research Council (JL), and the Swedish Cancer Society (JL).


Joonas H. Kauppila, Olli Helminen, Ville Kytö, Jarmo Gunn, Jesper Lagergren and Eero Sihvo declare no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration, Fitzmaurice C, Allen C, et al. Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:524–48.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lordick F, Mariette C, Haustermans K, et al. Oesophageal cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:v50–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lazzarino AI, Nagpal K, Bottle A, et al. Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: trends of utilization and associated outcomes in England. Ann Surg. 2010;252:292–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Luketich JD, Alvelo-Rivera M, Buenaventura PO, et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcomes in 222 patients. Ann Surg. 2003;238:486–94; discussion 494–5.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pennathur A, Luketich JD. Minimally invasive esophagectomy: short-term outcomes appear comparable to open esophagectomy. Ann Surg. 2012;255:206–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O, et al. Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg. 2012;256:95–103.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Palazzo F, Rosato EL, Chaudhary A, et al. 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. 2015;220:672–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sihag S, Wright CD, Wain JC, et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes following open versus minimally invasive Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy at a single, high-volume centre. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;42:430-437.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW, et al. Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;379:1887–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Straatman J, van der Wielen N, Cuesta MA, et al. Minimally invasive versus open esophageal resection: three-year Follow-up of the previously reported randomized controlled trial: the TIME trial. Ann Surg. 2017;266(2):232–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mamidanna R, Bottle A, Aylin P, et al. Short-term outcomes following open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer in England: a population-based national study. Ann Surg. 2012;255:197–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Takeuchi H, Miyata H, Ozawa S, et al. Comparison of short-term outcomes between open and minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer using a nationwide database in Japan. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(7):1821–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sihag S, Kosinski AS, Gaissert HA, et al. Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a comparison of early surgical outcomes from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101:1281–8; discussion 1288–9.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    In H, Palis BE, Merkow RP, et al. Doubling of 30-day mortality by 90 days after esophagectomy: a critical measure of outcomes for quality improvement. Ann Surg. 2016;263:286–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rutegard M, Lagergren P, Johar A, et al. Time shift in early postoperative mortality after oesophagectomy for cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3144–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Talsma AK, Lingsma HF, Steyerberg EW, et al. The 30-day versus in-hospital and 90-day mortality after esophagectomy as indicators for quality of care. Ann Surg. 2014;260:267–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Messager M, Pasquer A, Duhamel A, et al. Laparoscopic gastric mobilization reduces postoperative mortality after esophageal cancer surgery: a French Nationwide Study. Ann Surg. 2015;262:817–22; discussion 822–3.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Korhonen P, Malila N, Pukkala E, et al. The Finnish Cancer Registry as follow-up source of a large trial cohort: accuracy and delay. Acta Oncol. 2002;41:381–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lindblad M, Ye W, Lindgren A, et al. Disparities in the classification of esophageal and cardia adenocarcinomas and their influence on reported incidence rates. Ann Surg. 2006;243:479–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sund R. Quality of the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register: a systematic review. Scand J Public Health. 2012;40:505–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ludvigsson JF, Andersson E, Ekbom A, et al. External review and validation of the Swedish national inpatient register. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:450.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43:1130–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nilsson M, Kamiya S, Lindblad M, et al. Implementation of minimally invasive esophagectomy in a tertiary referral center for esophageal cancer. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9:S817–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kauppi J, Rasanen J, Sihvo E, et al. Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: clinical outcomes for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:2614–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rouvelas I, Zeng W, Lindblad M, et al. Survival after surgery for oesophageal cancer: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:864–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kassin MT, Owen RM, Perez SD, et al. Risk factors for 30-day hospital readmission among general surgery patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215:322–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brusselaers N, Mattsson F, Lagergren J. Hospital and surgeon volume in relation to long-term survival after oesophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut. 2014;63:1393–400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhou C, Zhang L, Wang H, et al. Superiority of minimally invasive oesophagectomy in reducing in-hospital mortality of patients with resectable oesophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2015;10:e0132889.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yerokun BA, Sun Z, Jeffrey Yang CF, et al. Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a population-Based analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102:416–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Parameswaran R, Blazeby JM, Hughes R, et al. Health-related quality of life after minimally invasive oesophagectomy. Br J Surg. 2010;97:525–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Maas KW, Cuesta MA, van Berge Henegouwen MI, et al. Quality of life and late complications after minimally invasive compared to open esophagectomy: results of a randomized trial. World J Surg. 2015;39:1986–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska InstitutetKarolinska University HospitalStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Cancer and Translational Medicine Research Unit, Medical Research Center OuluUniversity of Oulu and Oulu University HospitalOuluFinland
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryCentral Finland Central HospitalJyväskyläFinland
  4. 4.Heart CenterTurku University HospitalTurkuFinland
  5. 5.Research Center of Applied and Preventive Cardiovascular MedicineUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  6. 6.Department of Surgery, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  7. 7.Division of Cancer StudiesKing’s College London and Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK

Personalised recommendations