TABLE 2.
Minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy other than robot‐assisted surgery
| Author | Reference | Study type | Compared outcome | Type of surgery | Number of patients | Advantage | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| van Workum | 11 | Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses | Short‐term outcomes | CMIE‐MK a | 2142 | Lower rate of pulmonary complications, shorter LOS, lower amount of blood loss | |
| HMIE‐MK a | |||||||
| Sakamoto | 19 | Propensity score matching analysis | Short‐term outcomes | MIE | 4572 | Lower incidences of in‐hospital mortality, SSI, anastomotic leakage, blood transfusion, reoperation, tracheotomy, and unplanned intubation; shorter LOS | |
| OE | 4572 | Lower incidences of RLNP, shorter intubation period, shorter duration of anesthesia | |||||
| Sugita | 20 | Propensity score matching analysis | Short‐and long‐term outcomes | Elderly (≥75 y/o) | 29 | Similar: Intraoperative data, postoperative complications, in‐hospital mortality rate, CSS, OS | |
| Non‐elderly (<75 y/o) | 29 |
Abbreviations: CMIE‐MK, completely minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy; CSS, cancer‐specific survival; HMIE‐MK, hybrid minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy; LOS, length of stay; MIE, minimally invasive esophagectomy (thoracoscopy + laparoscopy or thoracoscopy + laparotomy); OE, open esophagectomy; OS, overall survival; RLNP, recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy; SSI, surgical site infection.
a
McKeown 92%, Ivor Lewis 8%.