Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Is Associated with Superior Survival Compared to Open Surgery.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has not been associated with a long-term survival advantage compared to open esophagectomy (OE). We investigated survival differences between MIE, including laparoscopic and robotic, and OE. METHODS: Patients undergoing esophagectomy from 2010 to 2014 with T1-4N0-3M0, adenocarcinoma or squamous cell histology, in middle or lower esophagus were queried from the National Cancer Database and stratified into groups based on their surgical procedure robotic, laparoscopic, or OE. Propensity matching (11) was done between robotic and laparoscopic to produce an MIE group. The MIE group was matched to OE yielding a 112 matching of roboticlaparoscopicOE. Postoperative outcomes and survival (Kaplan-Meier) were compared between groups. RESULTS: Prior to matching, 7,163 patients met inclusion criteria and a greater portion underwent OE (67.7%) than MIE (laparoscopic 24.9% and robotic 7.4%). Matching yielded similar groups (robotic = 527, laparoscopic = 527, and OE =1054). Compared to OE, MIE patients had a significantly greater number of nodes sampled and trended toward increased R0 resections (96.1% vs 94.3%, P = .053). OE was associated with a longer median postoperative stay (10 vs 9 days, P = .001). Mortality at 30 and 90 days was similar. However, postoperative survival for MIE was significantly greater than OE (P < .001). No survival difference existed between robotic and laparoscopic (P = .723). CONCLUSIONS: MIE is associated with increased number of nodes examined and a shorter postoperative length of stay. After propensity matching, patients undergoing MIE had better long but not short-term survival than OE. This benefit seems to be independent of the use of robotic technology.