Cargando…

Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Compared with open esophagectomy (OE), minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) proves to have clear benefits in reducing the risk of pulmonary complications for patients with resectable esophageal cancer. The objectives of our study were to explore the superiority of MIE in reducing the o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhou, Can, Ma, Gang, Li, Xiao, Li, Juan, Yan, Yu, Liu, Peijun, He, Jianjun, Ren, Yu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4560054/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26338060
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12957-015-0661-z
_version_ 1782388869026545664
author Zhou, Can
Ma, Gang
Li, Xiao
Li, Juan
Yan, Yu
Liu, Peijun
He, Jianjun
Ren, Yu
author_facet Zhou, Can
Ma, Gang
Li, Xiao
Li, Juan
Yan, Yu
Liu, Peijun
He, Jianjun
Ren, Yu
author_sort Zhou, Can
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Compared with open esophagectomy (OE), minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) proves to have clear benefits in reducing the risk of pulmonary complications for patients with resectable esophageal cancer. The objectives of our study were to explore the superiority of MIE in reducing the occurrence of anastomotic leakages (ALs) when compared to OE. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the superiority of MIE on the occurrence of ALs over OE, by searching many sources (through December, 2014) such as Medline, Embase, Wiley Online Library, and Cochrane Library. Fixed-effects model was used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) to quantify associations between OE and MIE groups. Cochran’s Q and I(2) statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity among studies. RESULTS: Among a total of 43 studies involving 5537 patients included in the meta-analysis, 2527 (45.6 %) cases underwent MIE and 3010 (54.4 %) cases underwent OE. Compared to patients undergoing OE, patients undergoing MIE did not have statistical significance in reduced occurrence of ALs (OR = 0.97, 95 % CI = 0.80–1.17). Insignificant reduced occurrence of ALs was not associated with anastomotic location (OR = 0.90, 95 % CI = 0.71–1.13) or anastomotic procedure (OR = 1.02, 95 % CI = 0.79–1.30). CONCLUSIONS: More proofs are needed to clarify the strengths or weaknesses of MIE in preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer. A largely randomized, controlled trial should be undertaken to resolve this contentious issue urgently.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4560054
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45600542015-09-05 Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis Zhou, Can Ma, Gang Li, Xiao Li, Juan Yan, Yu Liu, Peijun He, Jianjun Ren, Yu World J Surg Oncol Research BACKGROUND: Compared with open esophagectomy (OE), minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) proves to have clear benefits in reducing the risk of pulmonary complications for patients with resectable esophageal cancer. The objectives of our study were to explore the superiority of MIE in reducing the occurrence of anastomotic leakages (ALs) when compared to OE. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the superiority of MIE on the occurrence of ALs over OE, by searching many sources (through December, 2014) such as Medline, Embase, Wiley Online Library, and Cochrane Library. Fixed-effects model was used to calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) to quantify associations between OE and MIE groups. Cochran’s Q and I(2) statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity among studies. RESULTS: Among a total of 43 studies involving 5537 patients included in the meta-analysis, 2527 (45.6 %) cases underwent MIE and 3010 (54.4 %) cases underwent OE. Compared to patients undergoing OE, patients undergoing MIE did not have statistical significance in reduced occurrence of ALs (OR = 0.97, 95 % CI = 0.80–1.17). Insignificant reduced occurrence of ALs was not associated with anastomotic location (OR = 0.90, 95 % CI = 0.71–1.13) or anastomotic procedure (OR = 1.02, 95 % CI = 0.79–1.30). CONCLUSIONS: More proofs are needed to clarify the strengths or weaknesses of MIE in preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer. A largely randomized, controlled trial should be undertaken to resolve this contentious issue urgently. BioMed Central 2015-09-04 /pmc/articles/PMC4560054/ /pubmed/26338060 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12957-015-0661-z Text en © Zhou et al. 2015 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Zhou, Can
Ma, Gang
Li, Xiao
Li, Juan
Yan, Yu
Liu, Peijun
He, Jianjun
Ren, Yu
Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort is minimally invasive esophagectomy effective for preventing anastomotic leakages after esophagectomy for cancer? a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4560054/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26338060
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12957-015-0661-z
work_keys_str_mv AT zhoucan isminimallyinvasiveesophagectomyeffectiveforpreventinganastomoticleakagesafteresophagectomyforcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT magang isminimallyinvasiveesophagectomyeffectiveforpreventinganastomoticleakagesafteresophagectomyforcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lixiao isminimallyinvasiveesophagectomyeffectiveforpreventinganastomoticleakagesafteresophagectomyforcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lijuan isminimallyinvasiveesophagectomyeffectiveforpreventinganastomoticleakagesafteresophagectomyforcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yanyu isminimallyinvasiveesophagectomyeffectiveforpreventinganastomoticleakagesafteresophagectomyforcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT liupeijun isminimallyinvasiveesophagectomyeffectiveforpreventinganastomoticleakagesafteresophagectomyforcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hejianjun isminimallyinvasiveesophagectomyeffectiveforpreventinganastomoticleakagesafteresophagectomyforcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT renyu isminimallyinvasiveesophagectomyeffectiveforpreventinganastomoticleakagesafteresophagectomyforcancerasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis