Abstract:Abstract Background As an extensive surgery, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has advantages in reducing morbidity and improving quality of life for patients suffering from esophageal cancer. This study aims to investigate differences between MIE and open esophagectomy (OE) for considerations of the safety of procedures, rate of tumor resection, postoperative complications, and quality of life. This paper also tends to provide some references for MIE on esophageal cancer therapy. Methods A retrospective data analysis was undertaken on 140 patients who either underwent MIE or OE for esophageal cancer with cervical anastomosis from March 2013 to May 2014 by our surgical team. Preoperative characteristics were analyzed for both groups. Differences in perioperative and oncologic outcomes were compared in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, lymph nodes retrieved, and R0-resection rate. Accordingly, a comparative analysis was conducted on complications namely anastomotic leakage, pulmonary infection, in-hospital mortality, and short-term (3 months) postoperative EORTC C30 Global health as well. Results A total of 140 patients (87 with MIE and 53 with OE) were enrolled and the two groups were homogeneous in terms of patient- and tumor-related data. There was no difference on postoperative ICU stay (21.15 ± 1.54 h vs 21.75 ± 1.68 h, p = 0.07) and R0-resection rate (100% vs 100%, p = 1.00). The operation time for MIE was significantly shorter (146.08 ± 17.35 min vs 200.34 ± 14.51 min, p < 0.0001), the intraoperative blood loss was remarkably saved (MIE vs OE, 83.91 ± 24.72 ml vs 174.53 ± 35.32 ml, P < 0.0001) and more lymph nodes were retrieved (MIE vs OE, 38.89 ± 4.31 vs 18.42 ± 3.66, P < 0.0001). There was no difference between the groups to postoperative complications and mortality. However, pulmonary infection in MIE was higher than in OE and the difference was not statistically significant (MIE vs OE, 20.75% vs 31.03%, P = 0.24). Complications such as in-hospital mortality and short-term (3 months) postoperative EORTC C30 Global health displayed no difference between both groups as well. Conclusions The number of lymph nodes and intraoperative blood loss were significantly ameliorated in MIE. A 4–5 cm longitudinal incision below the xiphoid process was made to create the gastric conduit under direct vision assisting in shortening the total operation time significantly.

Outcomes, quality of life, and survival after esophagectomy for squamous cell carcinoma: A propensity score-matched comparison of operative approaches.

The role of surgery type in postoperative atrial fibrillation and in-hospital mortality in esophageal cancer patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction

Impact of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in Post-Operative Atrial Fibrillation and Long-Term Mortality in Patients among Esophageal Cancer.

254 lymph node dissection in t1 and t2 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open surgery

Comparisons between minimally invasive and open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer with cervical anastomosis: a retrospective study

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Provides Better Short- and Long-Term Outcomes Than Open Esophagectomy in Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer

Minimally Invasive or Open Esophagectomy for Treatment of Resectable Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma? Answer from a Real-World Multicenter Study

Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (NST 1502): A multicenter prospective cohort study

Impact of minimally invasive total mesoesophageal excision and minimally invasive esophagectomy on failure patterns of locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a matched cohort study with long-term follow-up

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Comparison of Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy and Left Transthoracic Esophagectomy in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients: a Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Left Versus Right Approach for Middle and Lower Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

Comparison of Clinical Outcome and Safety after Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Ivor Lewis Versus McKeown—A Real-World Multicenter Observational Study from China.

A retrospective study for Ivor-Lewis and McKeown esophagectomy:mininally invasive versus open esophagectomy

Minimally invasive surgical techniques for oesophageal cancer and nutritional recovery: a prospective population-based cohort study

The Prognostic Impact of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy on Survival after Esophagectomy following a Delayed Interval after Chemoradiotherapy; A Secondary Analysis of the DICE Study

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by minimally invasive esophagectomy: is it a superior approach for locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma?

Clinical outcomes of primary esophagectomy and secondary esophagectomy after endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A propensity-score matched analysis.

Can Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Replace Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer? Latest Analysis of 24,233 Esophagectomies From the Japanese National Clinical Database

Comparative analysis of manual vs. mechanical suturing techniques in esophagectomy: A propensity score‐matched study of long‐term outcomes

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by minimally invasive esophagectomy is safe and feasible for treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Outcomes of Fast Track Surgery Program Used in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy