Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2016 Sep;30(9):3873-81.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4692-x. Epub 2015 Dec 10.

Combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: a meta-analysis of outcomes

Affiliations
Review

Combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: a meta-analysis of outcomes

Wei Guo et al. Surg Endosc. 2016 Sep.

Abstract

Objectives: At present there is controversy regarding the optimal surgical method for esophageal cancer. Specifically, whether combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy is superior to open esophagectomy with respect to the surgical wound, perioperative morbidities and mortality, and the overall survival rate is of great concern. This article aimed to compare thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy on the perioperative morbidities and long-term survival.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases were searched for relevant studies comparing combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy with open esophagectomy using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards. Odds ratios were extracted to give pooled estimates of the perioperative effect of the two surgical procedures. Hazard ratios were extracted to compare overall survival between the two surgical procedures.

Results: Thirteen studies involving 1549 patients were included in this meta-analysis. We found that patients that underwent combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy had lower total complication rates (relative risk 1.20; 95 % CI 1.08-1.34; p = 0.0009), wound infection rates, pulmonary complications, and less intraoperative blood loss. Moreover, our study also showed combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy did not compromise the 5-year survival rate (hazard risk 0.920; 95 % CI 0.720-1.176; p = 0.505) and even improved 2-year survival rate. The 30-day mortality and other common morbidities, including anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stricture, pulmonary infection, chylothorax, arrhythmia, or recurrent laryngeal nerve injury, were not significantly different between combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy and traditional open esophagectomy (p > 0.05).

Conclusions: Combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy is a feasible and reliable surgical procedure that can achieve uncompromising long-term survival rates and reduce perioperative complications.

Keywords: Esophageal cancer; Esophagectomy; Laparoscopy; Meta-analysis; Minimally invasive surgery; Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Lancet. 2012 May 19;379(9829):1887-92 - PubMed
    1. Surg Endosc. 2010 Jul;24(7):1621-9 - PubMed
    1. N Engl J Med. 2002 Apr 11;346(15):1128-37 - PubMed
    1. World J Surg. 2009 Sep;33(9):1868-75 - PubMed
    1. Ann Surg. 2003 Oct;238(4):486-94; discussion 494-5 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources