HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): David I. Watson Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Zingg, U. Articles by Watson, D. I. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Zingg, U. Articles by Watson, D. I. Related Collections Esophagus - cancer

---

Original Articles: General Thoracic

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Patients With Esophageal Cancer

^a Flinders University Department of Surgery, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia
^b School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
^c Discipline of Surgery, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Accepted for publication November 24, 2008.

^_* Address correspondence to Dr Zingg, Flinders University Department of Surgery, Flinders Medical Centre, Flinders Drive, Bedford Park, 5042 SA, Australia (Email: uzingg{at}uhbs.ch).

Background: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) compared with open esophagectomy (OE) has been shown to have clinical advantages, but selection bias is present.

Methods: All patients undergoing MIE or OE for cancer between 1999 and 2007 were eligible for analysis. To minimize selection bias, only patients who also met the selection criteria for the thoracoscopic approach were included in the open esophagectomy group.

Results: Fifty-six patients underwent MIE and 98 OE. No significant differences in demographics or pathologic data between groups occurred, with the exception of thoracic epidural analgesia (OE 98%, MIE 71.1%, p < 0.001), and neoadjuvant treatment (OE 50.5%, MIE 71.4%, p = 0.016). Morbidity and in-hospital death were not significantly different. Duration of surgery was longer in MIE (250 vs 209 minutes, p < 0.001) and blood loss less (320 mL vs 857 mL, p < 0.001). Intensive care unit stay was shorter in MIE (3.0 vs 6.8 days, p = 0.022). The relative risk (RR) for in-hospital death was 0.57 (p = 0.475) if the patients underwent MIE. After adjusting for thoracic epidural analgesia, the RR was 0.29 (p = 0.213) for the MIE group. The RR for surgical morbidity was 1.47 (p = 0.154) for patients undergoing MIE. Neoadjuvant treatment increased the RR for surgical morbidity to 1.78 (p = 0.028). No difference between the two groups concerning survival occurred.

Conclusions: The MIE is comparable with the OE. In MIE, neoadjuvant treatment increased the risk of surgical morbidity. Thoracic epidural analgesia in MIE reduced the risk of in-hospital death and should be considered for all patients undergoing esophagectomy.