Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (MIE) Provide for Comparable Oncologic Outcomes to Open Techniques? A Systematic Review

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study is to compare minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and open techniques with respect to oncologic outcomes through analysis of the extent of lymph node clearance, number of lymph nodes retrieved, oncologic stage, and 5-year mortality.

Methodology

A systematic review of the literature review was conducted using MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases (1950–2011), and evaluated all comparative studies. Comparison between the open and MIE/hybrid MIE (HMIE) groups was possible with data being available for direct comparison.

Results

After careful review, 17 case–control studies with 1,586 patients having an esophagectomy were included in this systematic review. The median (range) number of lymph nodes found in the MIE, open and HMIE groups were 16 (5.7–33.90), 10 (3–32.80) and 17 (17–17.15), of which there was significance between the MIE and open groups (p = 0.03) but not significant between MIE versus HMIE (p = 0.25). There was no statistical significance in pathologic stage between open, MIE and HMIE groups. Generally, there were good short-term (30 day) survival rates between all three groups. The open group had 5-year survival rates between 16% and 57% compared to the MIE group 12.5%–63% (p = 0.33). Overall 5-year survival was found to be not significant between open group and MIE (p = 0.93). MIE does not appear on statistical evidence to present any survival advantage.

Conclusion

The evidence of this study suggests that MIE is equivalent to standard open esophagectomy in achieving similar oncological outcomes. Further randomised controlled trials are required to provide for a higher level of evidence.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Law S. Minimally invasive techniques for oesophageal cancer surgery. Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology. 2006;20(5):925–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Berrisford RG, Wajed SA, Sanders D, Rucklidge MW. Short-term outcomes following total minimally invasive oesophagectomy. British Journal of Surgery. 2008;95(5):602–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sanders G, Borie F, Husson E, Blanc P, Mauro G, Claus C, et al. Minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy: lessons learned. Surgical Endoscopy. 2007;21(7):1190–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Biere SS, van der Peet DL, Cuesta MA. Minimally invasive esophagectomy. Annals of Surgery. 2010;251(1):178–9; author reply 9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nagpal K, Ahmed K, Vats A, Yakoub D, James D, Ashrafian H, et al. Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2010;28:28.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sgourakis G, Gockel I, Radtke A, Musholt TJ, Timm S, Rink A, et al. Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy: Meta-Analysis of Outcomes. Dig Dis Sci. 2010;26:26.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fabian T, Martin JT, McKelvey AA, Federico JA. Minimally invasive esophagectomy: a teaching hospital’s first year experience. Diseases of the Esophagus. 2008;21(3):220–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Law S. Optimal surgical approach for esophagectomy: the debate still goes on? Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery: official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia. 2009;15(5):277.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Nguyen N, Hinojosa M, Smith B, Chang K, Gray J, Hoyt D. Minimally invasive esophagectomy: lessons learned from 104 operations. Annals of Surgery. 2008;248(6):1081.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Law S, Fok M, Chu K, Wong J. Thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Surgery. 1997;122(1):8–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Stein H, Siewert J. Improved prognosis of resected esophageal cancer. World Journal of Surgery. 2004;28(6):520–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Biere SS, Cuesta MA, van der Peet DL. Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Minerva Chirurgica. 2009;64(2):121–33.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Luketich J, Alvelo-Rivera M, Buenaventura P, Christie N, McCaughan J, Litle V, et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcomes in 222 patients. Annals of Surgery. 2003;238(4):486.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Parameswaran R, Veeramootoo D, Krishnadas R, Cooper M, Berrisford R, Wajed S. Comparative experience of open and minimally invasive esophagogastric resection. World Journal of Surgery. 2009;33(9):1868–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Verhage RJ, Hazebroek EJ, Boone J, Van Hillegersberg R. Minimally invasive surgery compared to open procedures in esophagectomy for cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Minerva Chirurgica. 2009;64(2):135–46.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Smithers BM, Gotley DC, Martin I, Thomas JM. Comparison of the outcomes between open and minimally invasive esophagectomy. Annals of Surgery. 2007;245(2):232–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Perry K, Enestvedt C, Pham T, Welker M, Jobe B, Hunter J, et al. Comparison of Laparoscopic Inversion Esophagectomy and Open Transhiatal Esophagectomy for High-Grade Dysplasia and Stage I Esophageal Adenocarcinoma. Archives of Surgery. 2009;144(7):679.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pham T, Perry K, Dolan J, Schipper P, Sukumar M, Sheppard B, et al. Comparison of perioperative outcomes after combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy and open Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy. The American Journal of Surgery. 2010;199(5):594–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rizk N, Ishwaran H, Rice T, Chen L, Schipper P, Kesler K, et al. Optimum lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer. Annals of Surgery. 2010;251(1):46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kang CH, Kim YT, Jeon SH, Sung SW, Kim JH. Lymphadenectomy extent is closely related to long-term survival in esophageal cancer. European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery. 2007;31(2):154.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Martin D, Church N, Kennedy C, Falk G. Does systematic 2 field lymphadenectomy for esophageal malignancy offer a survival advantage? Results from 178 consecutive patients. Diseases of the Esophagus. 2008;21(7):612–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Peyre C, Hagen J, DeMeester S, Altorki N, Ancona E, Griffin S, et al. The number of lymph nodes removed predicts survival in esophageal cancer: an international study on the impact of extent of surgical resection. Annals of Surgery. 2008;248(4):549.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Perry K, Enestvedt C, Diggs B, Jobe B, Hunter J. Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic transhiatal inversion esophagectomy compare favorably with those of combined thoracoscopic–laparoscopic esophagectomy. Surgical Endoscopy. 2009;23(9):2147–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Decker G, Coosemans W, De Leyn P, Decaluwe H, Nafteux P, Van Raemdonck D, et al. Minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer. European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery. 2009;35(1):13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zingg U, McQuinn A, DiValentino D, Esterman AJ, Bessell JR, Thompson SK, et al. Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer. Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2009;87(3):911–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gemmill EH, McCulloch P. Systematic review of minimally invasive resection for gastro-oesophageal cancer. British Journal of Surgery. 2007;94(12):1461–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Qureshi I, Nason K, Luketich J. Is minimally invasive esophagectomy indicated for cancer? Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy. 2008;8(9):1449–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schoppmann S, Prager G, Langer F, Riegler F, Kabon B, Fleischmann E, et al. Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: a single-center case controlled study. Surgical Endoscopy. 2010 (Epub ahead of print):1–10.

  29. Shiraishi T, Kawahara K, Shirakusa T, Yamamoto S, Maekawa T. Risk analysis in resection of thoracic esophageal cancer in the era of endoscopic surgery. The Annals of thoracic surgery. 2006;81(3):1083–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bresadola V, Terrosu G, Cojutti A, Benzoni E, Baracchini E, Bresadola F. Laparoscopic versus open gastroplasty in esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a comparative study. Surgical Laparoscopy Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques. 2006;16(2):63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kunisaki C, Hatori S, Imada T, Akiyama H, Ono H, Otsuka Y, et al. Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy With a Voice-controlled Robot: The AESOP System. Surgical Laparoscopy Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques. 2004;14(6):323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Van den Broek W, Makay Ö, Berends F, Yuan J, Houdijk A, Meijer S, et al. Laparoscopically assisted transhiatal resection for malignancies of the distal esophagus. Surgical Endoscopy. 2004;18(5):812–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Osugi H, Takemura M, Higashino M, Takada N, Lee S, Kinoshita H. A comparison of video-assisted thoracoscopic oesophagectomy and radical lymph node dissection for squamous cell cancer of the oesophagus with open operation. British Journal of Surgery. 2003;90(1):108–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Shah R, Jobe BA. Open Versus Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: What is the Best Approach? Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery. 2011:1–3.

  35. Taguchi S, Osugi H, Higashino M, Tokuhara T, Takada N, Takemura M, et al. Comparison of three-field esophagectomy for esophageal cancer incorporating open or thoracoscopic thoracotomy. Surgical Endoscopy. 2003;17(9):1445–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Nguyen N, Follette D, Wolfe B, Schneider P, Roberts P, Goodnight Jr J. Comparison of minimally invasive esophagectomy with transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy. Archives of Surgery. 2000;135(8):920.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Bernabe K, Bolton J, Richardson W. Laparoscopic hand-assisted versus open transhiatal esophagectomy: a case–control study. Surgical Endoscopy. 2005;19(3):334–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Benzoni E, Terrosu G, Bresadola V, Uzzau A, Intini S, Noce L, et al. A comparative study of the transhiatal laparoscopic approach versus laparoscopic gastric mobilisation and right open transthoracic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer management. Journal of Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases. 2007;16(4):395.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Smithers BM. Minimally invasive esophagectomy: an overview. Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology. 2010;4(1):91–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Whiteley-Martin Research Centre, Discipline of Surgery, The University of Sydney, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Nepean Hospital, Level 5, South Block, P.O. Box 63, Penrith, NSW, 2751, Australia

    Marc M. Dantoc, Michael R. Cox & Guy D. Eslick

Authors
  1. Marc M. Dantoc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael R. Cox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guy D. Eslick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guy D. Eslick.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dantoc, M.M., Cox, M.R. & Eslick, G.D. Does Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (MIE) Provide for Comparable Oncologic Outcomes to Open Techniques? A Systematic Review. J Gastrointest Surg 16, 486–494 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-011-1792-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-011-1792-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation