Abstract
There remains a lack of evidence regarding the optimal abdominal approach, including laparoscopy, hand-assisted, and open laparotomy for minimally invasive thoracoscopic esophagectomy. We aimed to compare the incidence of postoperative complications, particularly pulmonary complications, between laparoscopy and open laparotomy for minimally invasive thoracoscopic esophagectomy using nationwide Japanese databases. Data from patients in the National Clinical Database (NCD) who underwent thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer were analyzed. The incidence of pulmonary complications was compared between abdominal laparoscopy and laparotomy after matching the propensity scores (PS) from preoperative factors to account for confounding bias. Laparoscopic-assisted surgery (LAS) was also compared to hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS). Of the 24,790 patients who underwent esophagectomy between 2018 and 2021, data from 12,633 underwent thoracoscopic procedure. The proportion of patients who experienced pulmonary complications did not significantly differ between the laparoscopy group and the laparotomy group after matching (664/3195 patients, 20.8% versus 702/3195 patients, 22.0%; P = 0.25). No difference in the incidence of pulmonary complications was observed among patients treated using the laparoscopic approach (508/2439 patients, 20.8% in the LAS group versus 498/2439 patients, 20.4% in the HALS group; P = 0.72). We observed no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications between laparoscopy and laparotomy for thoracoscopic esophagectomy. Short-term outcomes were similar between the laparoscopic-assisted approach and the hand-assisted approach. This study provides valuable insights into the optimal abdominal approach for thoracoscopic esophagectomy using data from a nationwide database that reflect real-world clinical practice.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have