Comparison of perioperative outcomes following open versus minimally invasive Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy at a single, high-volume centre.

OBJECTIVES With the increasing popularity of minimally invasive oesophageal resections, equivalence, if not superiority, to open techniques must be demonstrated. Here we compare our open and minimally invasive Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy (MIE) experience. METHODS A prospective database of all oesophagectomies performed at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, MA between November 2007 and January 2011 was analysed. A total of 38 MIE and 76 open Ivor Lewis (OIE) oesophagectomies were performed for oesophageal carcinoma. Sixty-day surgical, oncological and postoperative outcomes were examined between the two groups. RESULTS Groups had similar demographics in terms of age, gender, tumour histology, clinical stage, preoperative comorbidities and neoadjuvant therapy. No difference was found with respect to adequacy of oncological resections. The median number of lymph nodes retrieved (OIE: 21, inter-quartile range (IQR): (16, 27) versus MIE: 19, IQR: (15, 28)), resection margins (OIE: 6.6% positive versus MIE: no positive margins) and 60-day mortality (OIE: 2.6% versus MIE: no deaths) were comparable. However, rates of pulmonary complications were significantly lower in the MIE group (OIE: 43.4 versus MIE: 2.6%, P < 0.001). Additionally, the median length of ICU and hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss and amount of intravenous fluids infused intraoperatively were also significantly decreased with MIE, while median operative times and the requirement for intraoperative blood transfusion were not significantly different between the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified MIE as the only variable associated with a significant reduction in the rate of pulmonary complications in our study, while pre-existing pulmonary comborbidity was associated with an increased risk of pulmonary complications. CONCLUSIONS Open and MIE appear equivalent with regard to early oncological outcomes. A minimally invasive approach, however, appears to lead to a significant reduction in the rate of postoperative pulmonary complications. Length of ICU and hospital stay, as well as intraoperative blood loss and intravenous fluid requirements are also reduced in the setting of MIE. Long-term survival data will need to be followed closely. A large, multi-centred, randomized, controlled trial is warranted to confirm these results.