Minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Ejso Pub Date : 2021-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ejso.2021.06.012
Francisca dos S. Coelho , Diana E. Barros , Filipa A. Santos , Flávia C. Meireles , Francisca C. Maia , Rita A. Trovisco , Teresa M. Machado , José A. Barbosa
{"title":"Minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Francisca dos S. Coelho ,&nbsp;Diana E. Barros ,&nbsp;Filipa A. Santos ,&nbsp;Flávia C. Meireles ,&nbsp;Francisca C. Maia ,&nbsp;Rita A. Trovisco ,&nbsp;Teresa M. Machado ,&nbsp;José A. Barbosa","doi":"10.1016/j.ejso.2021.06.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>The paradigm of the treatment of esophageal cancer has been changing with the increasing use of minimally invasive </span>esophagectomy (MIE) in detriment of open esophagectomy (OE). We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate and compare these two techniques in terms of mortality and associated complications.</p><p>The literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and U.S. National Library of Medicine Clinical Trials, considering eligible articles since 2015 to 2020. Clinical trials and observational studies were included. We presented results as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals and calculation of heterogeneity associated to the included studies.</p><p>Thirty-one articles were included with a total of 34,465 participants diagnosed with esophageal adenocarcinoma<span> or squamous cell carcinoma. MIE had tendency towards a decrease in 30- and 90- day mortality after surgery, but no statistically significative results were found. Major cardiovascular and respiratory complications were less frequent in the MIE group, despite high heterogeneity. Also, MIE might contribute to a decrease of minor post-operative complications, to an increase need of a second surgical intervention, to a greater risk for vocal cord lesions; but these results were not statistically significant. Additionally, no differences were found concerning risk of wound infection and for local and systemic recurrence.</span></p><p>MIE may be more beneficial than OE, but these findings should be considered carefully.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11522,"journal":{"name":"Ejso","volume":"47 11","pages":"Pages 2742-2748"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ejso.2021.06.012","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ejso","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0748798321005758","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

The paradigm of the treatment of esophageal cancer has been changing with the increasing use of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in detriment of open esophagectomy (OE). We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate and compare these two techniques in terms of mortality and associated complications.

The literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and U.S. National Library of Medicine Clinical Trials, considering eligible articles since 2015 to 2020. Clinical trials and observational studies were included. We presented results as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals and calculation of heterogeneity associated to the included studies.

Thirty-one articles were included with a total of 34,465 participants diagnosed with esophageal adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma. MIE had tendency towards a decrease in 30- and 90- day mortality after surgery, but no statistically significative results were found. Major cardiovascular and respiratory complications were less frequent in the MIE group, despite high heterogeneity. Also, MIE might contribute to a decrease of minor post-operative complications, to an increase need of a second surgical intervention, to a greater risk for vocal cord lesions; but these results were not statistically significant. Additionally, no differences were found concerning risk of wound infection and for local and systemic recurrence.

MIE may be more beneficial than OE, but these findings should be considered carefully.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
微创食管切除术与开放式食管切除术:系统回顾和荟萃分析
随着微创食管切除术(MIE)取代开放式食管切除术(OE)的应用越来越多,食管癌的治疗模式正在发生变化。我们的目的是进行一项荟萃分析,以评估和比较这两种技术的死亡率和相关并发症。文献检索在MEDLINE和美国国家医学临床试验图书馆进行,考虑了2015年至2020年的符合条件的文章。包括临床试验和观察性研究。我们以95%置信区间的平均差异和与纳入研究相关的异质性计算来呈现结果。31篇文章共纳入34,465名被诊断为食管腺癌或鳞状细胞癌的参与者。MIE有降低术后30天和90天死亡率的趋势,但没有统计学上的显著结果。MIE组的主要心血管和呼吸系统并发症发生率较低,尽管异质性较高。此外,MIE可能有助于减少轻微的术后并发症,增加第二次手术干预的需要,增加声带病变的风险;但这些结果在统计学上并不显著。此外,在伤口感染和局部和全身复发的风险方面没有发现差异。MIE可能比OE更有益,但这些发现应该仔细考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ejso
Ejso 医学-外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
2.60%
发文量
1148
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: JSO - European Journal of Surgical Oncology ("the Journal of Cancer Surgery") is the Official Journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and BASO ~ the Association for Cancer Surgery. The EJSO aims to advance surgical oncology research and practice through the publication of original research articles, review articles, editorials, debates and correspondence.
期刊最新文献
Pelvic exenteration for vulvar cancer: contemporary outcomes from a multinational cohort study. Statewide analysis of outcomes in patients with early-stage rectal cancer undergoing standard-of-care upfront resection. Patient reported outcomes after treatment for colon cancer - A nationwide study. Development and validation of prediction models for health-related quality of life outcomes after breast cancer surgery and reconstruction Logic, reason, and freethought: The case against axillary dissection after neoadjuvant therapy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1