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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Workum, Frans, Klarenbeek, Bastiaan R, Baranov, Nikolaj, Rovers, Maroeska M, Rosman, Camiel
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