Minimally invasive oesophagectomy: a valuable alternative to open oesophagectomy for the treatment of early oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction carcinoma

Abstract

Objective: The aim was to conduct a comparative analysis of outcome after minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) versus open oesophagectomy (OO) for early oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) carcinoma.

Methods: Inclusion criteria for MIO and a matched group of OO were pT<2 and N0. Surgical outcome, complications, survival and health-related quality of life (HRQL) were assessed.

Results: Between January 2005 and January 2010, 175 patients (101 OOs, 65 MIOs and nine MIOs converted to OO) fulfilled the abovementioned criteria. Histology was predominantly adenocarcinoma (75%), equally distributed between both groups as were preoperative co-morbidities (p = 0.43), pathologic staging (pT: p = 0.56) and mean number of resected lymph nodes in pTIS/1a (p = 0.23) and pT1b (p = 0.13). Blood loss was less (p = 0.01) and duration of operation longer (p = 0.001) in MIO. Hospital mortality (p = 0.66) and postoperative complications (p = 0.34) were comparable. However, respiratory complications (p = 0.008) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission (p = 0.02) were higher in OO. Gastrointestinal complications (p = 0.005), that is, gastroparesis (p = 0.004) were more frequent in MIO. At 3 months, postoperative fatigue, pain (general) and gastrointestinal pain were less in MIO (p = 0.09, 0.05 and 0.01, respectively). Five-year cancer-specific and recurrence-free survival stratified to the pathologic T-stage were not statistically different between MIO and OO.

Conclusion: MIO is a valuable alternative to OO for the treatment of early oesophageal and GOJ carcinoma. This study underscores the need for large-scale, preferably multicentric studies to assess the real value of MIO versus OO.