Cargando…
Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis
Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analys...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7455468/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32350519 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/dote/doaa021 |
_version_ | 1783575632466149376 |
---|---|
author | van Workum, Frans Klarenbeek, Bastiaan R Baranov, Nikolaj Rovers, Maroeska M Rosman, Camiel |
author_facet | van Workum, Frans Klarenbeek, Bastiaan R Baranov, Nikolaj Rovers, Maroeska M Rosman, Camiel |
author_sort | van Workum, Frans |
collection | PubMed |
description | Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing HMIE with TMIE. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles comparing HMIE and TMIE were included. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. The primary outcome was pneumonia. Sensitivity analysis was performed by analyzing outcome for open chest hybrid MIE versus total TMIE and open abdomen MIE versus TMIE separately. Therefore, subgroup analysis was performed for laparoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, thoracoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, Ivor Lewis HMIE versus Ivor Lewis TMIE, and McKeown HMIE versus McKeown TMIE. There were no randomized controlled trials. Twenty-nine studies with a total of 3732 patients were included. Studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. In the main analysis, the pooled incidence of pneumonia was 19.0% after HMIE and 9.8% after TMIE which was not significantly different between the groups (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97–2.20). TMIE was associated with a lower incidence of wound infections (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.13–2.90) and less blood loss (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.34–1.22) but with longer operative time (SMD:-0.33, 95% CI: −0.59—-0.08). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy-assisted HMIE was associated with a higher lymph node count than TMIE, and Ivor Lewis HMIE was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate than Ivor Lewis TMIE. In general, TMIE was associated with moderately lower morbidity compared to HMIE, but randomized controlled evidence is lacking. The higher leakage rate and lower lymph node count that was found after TMIE in sensitivity analysis indicate that TMIE can also have disadvantages. The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully by surgeons when moving from HMIE to TMIE. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7455468 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74554682020-09-02 Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis van Workum, Frans Klarenbeek, Bastiaan R Baranov, Nikolaj Rovers, Maroeska M Rosman, Camiel Dis Esophagus Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing HMIE with TMIE. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles comparing HMIE and TMIE were included. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. The primary outcome was pneumonia. Sensitivity analysis was performed by analyzing outcome for open chest hybrid MIE versus total TMIE and open abdomen MIE versus TMIE separately. Therefore, subgroup analysis was performed for laparoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, thoracoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, Ivor Lewis HMIE versus Ivor Lewis TMIE, and McKeown HMIE versus McKeown TMIE. There were no randomized controlled trials. Twenty-nine studies with a total of 3732 patients were included. Studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. In the main analysis, the pooled incidence of pneumonia was 19.0% after HMIE and 9.8% after TMIE which was not significantly different between the groups (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97–2.20). TMIE was associated with a lower incidence of wound infections (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.13–2.90) and less blood loss (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.34–1.22) but with longer operative time (SMD:-0.33, 95% CI: −0.59—-0.08). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy-assisted HMIE was associated with a higher lymph node count than TMIE, and Ivor Lewis HMIE was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate than Ivor Lewis TMIE. In general, TMIE was associated with moderately lower morbidity compared to HMIE, but randomized controlled evidence is lacking. The higher leakage rate and lower lymph node count that was found after TMIE in sensitivity analysis indicate that TMIE can also have disadvantages. The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully by surgeons when moving from HMIE to TMIE. Oxford University Press 2020-04-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7455468/ /pubmed/32350519 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/dote/doaa021 Text en © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review and Meta-analysis van Workum, Frans Klarenbeek, Bastiaan R Baranov, Nikolaj Rovers, Maroeska M Rosman, Camiel Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7455468/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32350519 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/dote/doaa021 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vanworkumfrans totallyminimallyinvasiveesophagectomyversushybridminimallyinvasiveesophagectomysystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT klarenbeekbastiaanr totallyminimallyinvasiveesophagectomyversushybridminimallyinvasiveesophagectomysystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT baranovnikolaj totallyminimallyinvasiveesophagectomyversushybridminimallyinvasiveesophagectomysystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT roversmaroeskam totallyminimallyinvasiveesophagectomyversushybridminimallyinvasiveesophagectomysystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT rosmancamiel totallyminimallyinvasiveesophagectomyversushybridminimallyinvasiveesophagectomysystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |