Yang J, Chen L, Ge K, Yang JL. Efficacy of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy vs open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2019; 11(11): 1081-1091 [PMID: 31798787 DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v11.i11.1081]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Jiao Yang, MD, Doctor, Department of Infectious Diseases, Zhejiang Hospital, 12 Lingyin Road, Hangzhou 310000, Zhejiang Province, China. yangjiao19890912@163.com
Research Domain of This Article
Oncology
Article-Type of This Article
Meta-Analysis
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Gastrointest Oncol. Nov 15, 2019; 11(11): 1081-1091 Published online Nov 15, 2019. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v11.i11.1081
Efficacy of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy vs open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis
Jiao Yang, Ling Chen, Ke Ge, Jian-Le Yang
Jiao Yang, Ling Chen, Ke Ge, Jian-Le Yang, Department of Infectious Diseases, Zhejiang Hospital, 12 Lingyin Road, Hangzhou 310013, Zhejiang Province, China
Author contributions: Yang J contributed to idea conception, literature search, data extraction, and manuscript writing and approval; Chen L contributed to data extraction, data confirmation, and manuscript writing and approval; Ge K and Yang JL contributed to data confirmation and manuscript writing and approval.
Conflict-of-interest statement: None to declare.
PRISMA 2009 Checklist statement: The authors have read the PRISMA 2009 Checklist and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the PRISMA 2009 Checklist.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Received: February 25, 2019 Peer-review started: February 26, 2019 First decision: April 16, 2019 Revised: May 13, 2019 Accepted: August 18, 2019 Article in press: August 19, 2019 Published online: November 15, 2019 Processing time: 264 Days and 23.1 Hours
ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS
Research background
The first line treatment regimen for esophageal cancer is still surgical resection and the choice of surgical scheme depends on the surgeon.
Research motivation
Now the efficacy comparison of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) and open esophagectomy (OE) is still controversial.
Research objectives
To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of HMIE and OE in patients with esophageal cancer.
Research methods
PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for related articles.
Research results
Seventeen studies including a total of 2397 patients were selected. HMIE was significantly associated with less blood loss (SMD = -0.43, 95%CI: -0.66, -0.20; P = 0.0002) and lower incidence of pulmonary complications (OR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.57, 0.90; P = 0.004).
Research conclusions
Compared with OE, HMIE shows less blood loss and pulmonary complications.
Research perspectives
Further studies are necessary to evaluate the long-term oncologic outcomes of HMIE.
