Minimally invasive vs open vs hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal carcinoma has emerged as the contemporary alternative to conventional laparoscopic minimally invasive (LMIE), hybrid (HE) and open (OE) surgical approaches. No single study has compared all four approaches with a view to postoperative outcomes. A systematic search of electronic databases was undertaken. A network meta-analysis was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-network meta-analysis guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using R and Shiny. Seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 1063 patients were included. Overall, 32.9% of patients underwent OE (350/1063), 11.0% underwent HE (117/1063), 34.0% of patients underwent LMIE (361/1063), and 22.1% of patients underwent RAMIE (235/1063). OE had the lowest anastomotic leak rate 7.7% (27/350), while LMIE had the lowest pulmonary 10.8% (39/361), cardiac 0.56% (1/177) complications, re-intervention rates 5.08% (12/236), 90-day mortality 1.05% (2/191), and shortest length of hospital stay (mean 11.25 days). RAMIE displayed the lowest 30-day mortality rate at 0.80% (2/250). There was a significant increase in pulmonary complications for those undergoing OE (OR 3.63 [95% confidence interval: 1.4-9.77]) when compared to RAMIE. LMIE is a safe and feasible option for esophagectomy when compared to OE and HE. The upcoming RCTs will provide further data to make a more robust interrogation of the surgical outcomes following RAMIE compared to conventional open surgery to determine equipoise or superiority of each approach as the era of minimally invasive esophagectomy continues to evolve (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Registration: CRD42023438790).

Keywords: anastomotic leak; complications; esophageal cancer; esophagectomy; minimally invasive.