Substitute or coexistence? Mediastinoscopy-assisted versus thoracoscope-assisted esophagectomy in esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and long-term survival
Pinhao Fang,Jianfeng Zhou,Yixin Liu,Zhiwen Liang,Yushang Yang,Siyuan Luan,Xin Xiao,Xiaokun Li,Hanlu Zhang,Qixin Shang,Longqi Chen,Xiaoxi Zeng,Yong Yuan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000001777
2024-09-01
Abstract:Background: Currently, mediastinoscopy-assisted esophagectomy (MAE) and thoracoscope-assisted esophagectomy (TAE) represent two prevalent forms of minimally invasive esophagectomy extensively employed in the management of esophageal cancer (EC). The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess and compare these two surgical approaches concerning perioperative outcomes and long-term survival, offering valuable insights for refining surgical strategies and enhancing patient outcomes in this field. Methods: Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, the authors systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and CNKI databases until 1 March 2024, for studies comparing MAE and TAE. Outcomes of interest included perioperative outcomes (intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, postoperative complications) and survival rates. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4, with heterogeneity dictating the use of fixed or random-effects models. Results: A total of 21 relevant studies were finally included. MAE was associated with significantly shorter operation times [mean difference (MD)=-59.58 min, 95% CI: -82.90 to -36.26] and less intraoperative blood loss (MD=-68.34 ml, 95% CI: -130.45 to -6.23). However, MAE resulted in fewer lymph nodes being dissected (MD=-3.50, 95% CI: -6.23 to -0.78). Postoperative recovery was enhanced following MAE, as evidenced by reduced hospital stays and tube times. MAE significantly reduced pulmonary complications [odds ratio (OR)=0.59, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.81] but increased the incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury (OR=1.84, 95% CI: 1.30, 2.60). No significant differences were observed in anastomotic leakage, chylothorax, cardiac complications, wound infections, and gastric retention between MAE and TAE. The long-term survival outcomes showed no statistical difference [hazard ratio (HR)=1.05, 95% CI: 0.71, 1.54]. Conclusions: MAE offers advantages in reducing operation time, blood loss, and specific postoperative complications, particularly pulmonary complications, with a shorter recovery period compared to TAE. However, it poses a higher risk of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and results in fewer lymph nodes being dissected. No difference in long-term survival was observed, indicating that both techniques have distinct benefits and limitations. These findings underscore the need for personalized surgical approaches in EC treatment, considering individual patient characteristics and tumor specifics.