Efficacy of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy vs open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The first line treatment regimen for esophageal cancer is still surgical resection and the choice of surgical scheme depends on surgeon. Now the efficacy comparison of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) is still controversial. AIM: To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of HMIE and OE in patients with esophageal cancer. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for related articles. The odds ratio (OR) or standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to evaluate the effectiveness of HMIE and OE. RESULTS: Seventeen studies including a total of 2397 patients were selected. HMIE was significantly associated with less blood loss (SMD = -0.43, 95%CI -0.66, -0.20; P = 0.0002) and lower incidence of pulmonary complications (OR = 0.72, 95%CI 0.57, 0.90; P = 0.004). No significant differences were seen in the lymph node yield (SMD = 0.11, 95%CI -0.08, 0.30; P = 0.26), operation time (SMD = 0.24, 95%CI -0.14, 0.61; P = 0.22), total complications rate (OR = 0.68, 95%CI 0.46, 0.99; P = 0.05), cardiac complication rate (OR = 0.91, 95%CI 0.62, 1.34; P = 0.64), anastomotic leak rate (OR = 0.95, 95%CI 0.67, 1.35; P = 0.78), duration of intensive care unit stay (SMD = -0.01, 95%CI -0.21, 0.19; P = 0.93), duration of hospital stay (SMD = -0.13, 95%CI -0.28, 0.01; P = 0.08), and total mortality rates (OR = 0.70, 95%CI 0.47, 1.06; P = 0.09) between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with the OE, HMIE shows less blood loss and pulmonary complications. However, further studies are necessary to evaluate the long-term oncologic outcomes of HMIE.