3.9 Article

Morbidity in open versus minimally invasive hybrid esophagectomy (MIOMIE): Long-term results of arandomized controlled clinical study

Journal

EUROPEAN SURGERY-ACTA CHIRURGICA AUSTRIACA
Volume 50, Issue 6, Pages 249-255

Publisher

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s10353-018-0552-y

Keywords

Minimally invasive surgical procedures; Esophageal cancer; Esophageal resection; Laparoscopy

Categories

Funding

  1. Medical University of Vienna

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer was introduced assuming a reduction of morbidity and operation time. After implementation of MIE at our institution, a randomized controlled trial was designed. Methods This is a prospective randomized controlled study comparing open (OE) and laparoscopic gastric tube (MIE) formation in Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. Primary endpoints were morbidity and 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included the duration of intensive care unit stay, length of hospital stay, operative time as well as relapse-free and overall survival. Results Twenty patients (76.9%) were male, median age was 63years (40-77). Median operation time was 290 (215-385) minutes in OE and 292.5 (200-450) minutes in MIE group, p = 0.421. Major complications occurred in 4 (33.3%) patients in the OE group and in 6 (35.7%) patients in the MIE group. Anastomotic leakage was seen in 2 (16.6%) and 3 (21.4%) patients, respectively (OR 1.364; CI = 0.188-9.912; p = 0.759). Due to an alarming number of consecutive anastomotic leakages, the trial was stopped after inclusion of 26 patients. Median follow-up was 41.5 (1-62.6) months. 5-year survival rate was 50%. Thirty-eight percent developed recurrence of disease in the study period. There was no significant difference in overall and relapse-free survival regarding the type of surgery. Conclusion This study shows that hybrid MIE is a feasible alternative for esophageal resection. Morbidity, mortality, and oncological long-term results were equal in both groups, but the interpretation has to be done carefully due to premature termination of the trial. Interrupting a trial because of patient benefit should not be a reason to discard results but rather to improve technical aspects and strive for novel studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available