Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Open or Minimally Invasive? Comparison of Early and Late Results

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction

  • 937 Accesses

Abstract

Esophagectomy remains a surgical operation with the potential for significant morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive techniques have been introduced in an attempt to reduce postoperative complications and enhance patient recovery. Whether minimally invasive techniques decrease morbidity while maintaining the quality of the oncological resection remains a topic of debate. Globally, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been shown to be feasible and safe, with outcomes similar to open esophagectomy. Assessments of the current role of MIO have largely been made based on retrospective comparative studies and many single institution series. These generally have reported that MIO reduces blood loss, shortens time in high-dependency care, and decreases length of hospital stay. Lymph node yields appear to be similar with a minimally invasive resection compared to open extended lymphadenectomy, and MIO cancer outcomes are comparable. MIO will be a major component of the future esophageal surgeons’ armamentarium, but should continue to be carefully assessed. Randomized trials comparing MIO versus open resection in esophageal cancer are urgently needed, with only one phase III (TIME) trial having been published with the final results from a further phase III trial (MIRO trial) being keenly awaited.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV et al (2002) Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 346:1128–1137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Low DE, Kunz S, Schembre D et al (2007) Esophagectomy–it’s not just about mortality anymore: standardized perioperative clinical pathways improve outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 11:1395–1402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Akaishi T, Kaneda I, Higuchi N et al (1996) Thoracoscopic en bloc total esophagectomy with radical mediastinal lymphadenectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 112:1533–1540

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gossot D, Fourquier P, Celerier M (1993) Thoracoscopic esophagectomy: technique and initial results. Ann Thorac Surg 56:667–670

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gemmill EH, McCulloch P (2007) Systematic review of minimally invasive resection for gastro-oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg 94:1461–1467

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mariette C, Robb WB (2012) Open or minimally invasive resection for oesophageal cancer? Recent Results Cancer Res 196:155–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nagpal K, Ahmed K, Vats A et al (2010) Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 24:1621–1629

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dapri G, Himpens J, Cadiere GB (2008) Minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer: laparoscopic transhiatal procedure or thoracoscopy in prone position followed by laparoscopy? Surg Endosc 22:1060–1069

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fabian T, Martin JT, McKelvey AA et al (2008) Minimally invasive esophagectomy: a teaching hospital's first year experience. Dis Esophagus 21:220–225

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Law S, Fok M, Chu KM et al (1997) Thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Surgery 122:8–14

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nguyen NT, Follette DM, Wolfe BM et al (2000) Comparison of minimally invasive esophagectomy with transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy. Arch Surg 135:920–925

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Osugi H, Takemura M, Higashino M et al (2003) A comparison of video-assisted thoracoscopic oesophagectomy and radical lymph node dissection for squamous cell cancer of the oesophagus with open operation. Br J Surg 90:108–113

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kunisaki C, Hatori S, Imada T et al (2004) Video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy with a voice-controlled robot: the AESOP system. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 14:323–327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Van den Broek WT, Makay O, Berends FJ et al (2004) Laparoscopically assisted transhiatal resection for malignancies of the distal esophagus. Surg Endosc 18:812–817

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bresadola V, Terrosu G, Cojutti A et al (2006) Laparoscopic versus open gastroplasty in esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a comparative study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 16:63–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bernabe KQ, Bolton JS, Richardson WS (2005) Laparoscopic hand-assisted versus open transhiatal esophagectomy: a case-control study. Surg Endosc 19:334–337

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Shiraishi T, Kawahara K, Shirakusa T et al (2006) Risk analysis in resection of thoracic esophageal cancer in the era of endoscopic surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 81:1083–1089

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Braghetto I, Csendes A, Cardemil G et al (2006) Open transthoracic or transhiatal esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy in terms of morbidity, mortality and survival. Surg Endosc 20:1681–1686

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Smithers BM, Gotley DC, Martin I et al (2007) Comparison of the outcomes between open and minimally invasive esophagectomy. Ann Surg 245:232–240

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Zingg U, McQuinn A, DiValentino D et al (2009) Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 87:911–919

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Perry KA, Enestvedt CK, Pham T et al (2009) Comparison of laparoscopic inversion esophagectomy and open transhiatal esophagectomy for high-grade dysplasia and stage I esophageal adenocarcinoma. Arch Surg 144:679–684

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Parameswaran R, Veeramootoo D, Krishnadas R et al (2009) Comparative experience of open and minimally invasive esophagogastric resection. World J Surg 33:1868–1875

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pham TH, Perry KA, Dolan JP et al (2010) Comparison of perioperative outcomes after combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy and open Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. Am J Surg 199:594–598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schoppmann SF, Prager G, Langer FB et al (2010) Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: a single-center case controlled study. Surg Endosc 24:3044–3053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Singh RK, Pham TH, Diggs BS et al (2010) Minimally invasive esophagectomy provides equivalent oncologic outcomes to open esophagectomy for locally advanced (stage II or III) esophageal carcinoma. Arch Surg 146:711–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mamidanna R, Bottle A, Aylin P et al (2012) Short-term outcomes following open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer in England: a population-based national study. Ann Surg 255:197–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ben-David K, Sarosi GA, Cendan JC et al (2012) Decreasing morbidity and mortality in 100 consecutive minimally invasive esophagectomies. Surg Endosc 26:162–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Briez N, Piessen G, Torres F et al (2012) Effects of hybrid minimally invasive oesophagectomy on major postoperative pulmonary complications. Br J Surg 99:1547–1553

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Xie MR, Liu CQ, Guo MF et al (2014) Short-term outcomes of minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 97:1721–1727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hsu PK, Huang CS, Wu YC et al (2014) Open versus thoracoscopic esophagectomy in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. World J Surg 38:402–409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW et al (2012) Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 379:1887–1892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Briez N, Piessen G, Bonnetain F et al (2011) Open versus laparoscopically-assisted oesophagectomy for cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled phase III trial – the MIRO trial. BMC Cancer 11:310

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Biere SS, Cuesta MA, van der Peet DL (2009) Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Minerva Chir 64:121–133

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sgourakis G, Gockel I, Radtke A et al (2010) Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy: meta-analysis of outcomes. Dig Dis Sci 55:3031–3040

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mariette C, Meunier B, Pezet D et al (2014) Hybrid minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase III controlled trial, the MIRO trial. Paper presented at the American society of clinical oncology gastrointestinal cancers symposium, San Francisco, 15–17 Jan 2015

    Google Scholar 

  36. Avery KN, Metcalfe C, Berrisford R et al (2014) The feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of esophagectomy for esophageal cancer–the ROMIO (Randomized Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) study: protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 15:200

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding Source

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Digestive and Oncological Surgery, University Hospital Claude Huriez, Regional University Hospital Center, Place de Verdun, 59037, Lille Cedex, France

    William B. Robb & Christophe Mariette MD, PhD

  2. University of Lille 2, Lille, France

    Christophe Mariette MD, PhD

Authors
  1. William B. Robb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christophe Mariette MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Upper Gastrointestinal and General Surgery, University of Verona, Verona, Italy

    Simone Giacopuzzi

  2. Upper Gastrointestinal and General Surgery, University of Verona, Verona, Italy

    Andrea Zanoni

  3. Upper Gastrointestinal and General Surgery, University of Verona, Verona, Italy

    Giovanni de Manzoni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Robb, W.B., Mariette, C. (2017). Open or Minimally Invasive? Comparison of Early and Late Results. In: Giacopuzzi, S., Zanoni, A., de Manzoni, G. (eds) Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28776-8_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28776-8_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28774-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28776-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation