Open versus hybrid versus totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundHybrid and minimally invasive approaches have emerged as less invasive alternatives to open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcomes between open (OE), hybrid (HE), and totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE). MethodsA systematic literature search was performed to analyze outcomes after OE, HE, and TMIE with intrathoracic anastomosis. Main outcomes included anastomotic leak rate, overall morbidity, and 30-day mortality. A meta-analysis of proportions was used to assess the effect of each approach on different outcomes. ResultsA total of 130 studies comprising 16,053 patients were included for analysis; 8081 (50.3%) underwent OE, 1524 (9.5%) HE, and 6448 (40.2%) TMIE. The risk of anastomotic leak was lower after OE (odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.81; P < .0001). Overall morbidity rate was 45% (95% CI, 38%-52%) after OE, 40% (95% CI, 25%-59%) after HE, and 37% (95% CI, 32%-43%) after TMIE. Risk estimation showed higher odds of postoperative mortality after OE (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.76-2.81; P < .0001) and HE (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.32-2.81; P < .001), compared with TMIE. Median length of hospital stay (LOS) was 14.1 (range, 8-28), 12.5 (range, 8-18), and 11.9 (range, 7-30) days after OE, HE and TMIE, respectively (P = .003). ConclusionsHE and TMIE are associated with lower rates of overall morbidity, reduced postoperative mortality, and shorter LOS, compared with OE. TMIE is associated with lower mortality rates and shorter LOS than HE. Further efforts are needed to widely embrace TMIE in a safe manner.