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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |