Abstract
Background
The aim of this study was to compare the short‐term outcomes and three‐year survival between dual‐incision esophagectomy (DIE) and total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy (MIME) for esophageal cancer patients with negative upper mediastinal lymph nodes requiring esophagectomy and neck anastomosis.
Methods
One hundred and fifty patients underwent DIE, while 361 patients received total MIME. Perioperative outcomes and three‐year survival were compared in unmatched and propensity score matched data between two groups.
Results
Both unmatched and matched analysis demonstrated that there were no significant differences in the number of lymph nodes harvested, or major or minor complication rates between the DIE and MIME groups. Compared with patients who underwent DIE, patients who underwent total MIME had longer operation duration (310 minutes vs. 345 minutes; P = 0.002). However, there was significantly less intraoperative blood loss in the total MIME compared with the DIE group (191 mL vs. 287 mL, respectively; P < 0.001). Kaplan‐Meier analysis demonstrated a trend that patients who underwent MIME had longer overall (79.5% vs. 64.1%; P = 0.063) and disease‐free three‐year survival (65.3% vs. 82.8%; P = 0.058) compared with patients who underwent DIE.
Conclusions
Both total MIME and DIE are feasible for the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer patients with negative upper mediastinal lymph nodes requiring esophagectomy and neck anastomosis. However, MIME was associated with better overall and disease‐free three‐year survival compared with DIE.
Keywords: Complication, dual‐incision, minimally invasive surgery, survival
Introduction
It is estimated that 455 800 new esophageal cancer (EC) cases and 400 200 deaths occurred in 2012 worldwide.1 China has the highest incidence and death from EC in the world, with rates of 21.62 per 100 000 person‐years and 16.25 per 100 000 person‐years in 2011, respectively.2 Surgery remains the main treatment modality for resectable carcinoma of the esophagus.3, 4, 5
The choice of surgical approach is based not only on the location of the lesion, allowing complete planned intervention, but also the specific character of surgical trauma taking into account the patient's functional status.3 There are two main approaches for middle and lower third EC: Ivor Lewis and Sweet. An international survey on EC showed that Ivor Lewis was the most commonly used approach in Western countries, while the Sweet approach was the most common in China.6, 7 For middle and upper third EC, the open McKeown approach is the most commonly used approach, with the advantage of complete resection of the esophagus and regional lymph nodes (LNs), which may improve long‐term; although the overall perioperative complication rate and pulmonary complications using the McKeown approach are over 45% and 20%, respectively.8 Recently, a study showed that minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy (MIME) was superior to open McKeown esophagectomy with reduced estimated intraoperative blood loss, despite comparable short‐term and long‐term survival.9
For EC patients with enlarged LNs in the upper mediastinum who are in need of an esophagectomy, the Ivor Lewis and McKeown are both reasonable approaches. However, for EC patients with negative upper mediastinal LNs who are in need of esophagectomy, there is debate over the optimal approach. For example, a recent study comparing right and left transthoracic approaches on the survival of patients with LN negative esophageal squamous cell carcinoma demonstrated that the left transthoracic approach is superior to the right in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes.10
Dual‐incision esophagectomy (DIE) has been used as an alternative approach for McKeown esophagectomy in our hospital for EC patients with negative LNs in the upper mediastinum.11 Recently, Yu et al. reported that DIE through the left chest and neck achieved comparable short‐term outcomes and long‐term survival compared with Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.12 However, no studies have been conducted to compare the outcome between MIME and DIE for EC patients with negative LNs in the upper mediastinum requiring esophagectomy and neck anastomosis. Therefore, the aim of this study was to summarize the surgical results between DIE and total MIME for EC patients with negative LNs in the upper mediastinum in our center.
Methods
The study included 115 consecutive patients who underwent DIE between January 2005 and October 2015 and 361 patients who received total MIME between January 2009 and July 2015 in the Department of Thoracic Oncologic Surgery in our hospital. Preoperative staging work‐up included chest computed tomography (CT), abdominal ultrasonography, head CT, and bone scan. A positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scan is not included in the preoperative workup because medical insurance does not cover the expense. Patients with enlarged LNs in the upper mediastinum or with incomplete data were excluded.
The institutional review board of our hospital approved the study. The procedures followed were in accordance with ethical standards for human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.
The clinical variables included age, gender, body mass index (BMI), Charlson score, use of neoadjuvant therapy, tumor location, duration of surgery, estimated intraoperative blood loss, number of harvested LNs, differentiation, http://www.cancerstaging.org/ (AJCC) stage, postoperative morbidity rate, length of hospital stay, locoregional and distant recurrence, and three‐year overall survival (OS) and disease‐free survival (DFS). All patients were diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma by postoperative pathology.
In 2012, a randomized, controlled trial of neoadjuvant treatment showed survival benefit in locally advanced EC compared with esophagectomy alone.13 Since then, we have adopted chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy as an alternative for locally advanced EC.
A Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) was determined according to Charlson et al.'s definition.14 EC staging was assessed according to 2009 AJCC staging.15 Postoperative complications were recorded based on international consensus on the standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy.16, 17 Nine categories of complications were included: pulmonary, cardiac, gastrointestinal, urologic, thromboembolic, neurologic/psychiatric, infection, wound/diaphragm, and other. The major and minor complication data were scored using Clavien–Dindo classification.18 OS was calculated from the day after surgery, while DFS was calculated from the day after surgery to the last follow‐up without evidence of residual and metastatic cancer.
For EC patients with no enlarged LNs in the upper mediastinum, both DIE involving left transthoracic and neck incison and McKeown approaches are acceptable in our medical center, as long as the primary lesion and LNs can be completely removed. Young patients with good functional status tend to be treated using the McKeown approach, while older patients with poor functional status undergo dual incision.
Surgical technique
Dual‐incision esophagectomy (DIE)
Dual‐incision esophagectomy includes the left posterolateral thoracotomy incision and left neck anastomosis. The left transthoracic procedure is similar to the Sweet approach. First, the tumor in the thoracic esophagus is mobilized and then the diaphragm is cut, which liberates the stomach. The stomach is then pulled to the neck, and an anastomosis is performed through the left neck incision. Thoracic and abdominal LN dissections are routinely performed; however, pyloroplasty and cervical LN dissection are not routinely performed.11
Total minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy (MIME)
The details of total MIME have been described in our previous study.9, 19, 20 In short, the patient is placed in the left lateral decubitus position. Four thoracoscopic ports are established. The thoracic esophagus, along with the periesophageal tissue and mediastinal LNs, is circumferentially mobilized from the diaphragm to the level of inlet of the thorax. Mediastinal lymphadenectomy is performed in every patient, including the left recurrent and right subclavian, paratracheal, subcarinal, left and right bronchial, lower posterior mediastinum, para‐aortic, and para‐esophageal LN regions. The chest is inspected closely, and hemostasis is verified. A chest tube is routinely placed. The patient is then placed in a supine position. A pneumoperitoneum (12–14 cm H2O) is established by CO2 injection through an umbilical port. A total of five abdominal ports (three 5 mm and two 10 mm) are used. The stomach is mobilized and the abdominal/distal esophagus is dissected as far as possible toward the distal end. The gastric conduit is then made extracorporeally. Pyloroplasty or gastric drainage procedures were not routinely performed in our study and a feeding jejunostomy tube was not created. Instead, we inserted a duodenal nutrition tube before anastomosis. The abdomen is inspected to make sure that hemostasis is adequate and the incisions are closed. After the laparoscopic and thoracoscopic phases, a 4–6 cm horizontal neck incision is made. The cervical esophagus is exposed. After the specimen is removed from the field, an anastomosis is performed between the cervical esophagus and gastric tube using standard techniques (mechanical stapled or handsewn anastomosis in an end‐to‐side fashion).
Statistical analysis
SPSS version 16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis. Data were presented as mean value ± standard deviation for continuous variables and percentages for dichotomous variables. Continuous variables were analyzed using the t‐test, and categorical variables were analyzed using Fisher's exact test. We first performed overall unmatched analysis for all patients. We then conducted propensity score matching analysis according to Austin's technique.21 For propensity score matching analysis, we first created a logistic regression model that calculated matched propensity scores using the approach (MIME or DIE) as an outcome with age, gender, BMI, CCI, tumor location, and neoadjuvant radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. Patients with scores lower than 0.10 (high chance of undergoing DIE) and higher than 0.90 (high chance of undergoing MIME) were excluded. We reported the absolute difference for variables after matching rather than statistical significance testing. We then performed analysis for all matched patients. Survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and log‐rank tests were used to analyze differences between curves. Statistical significance was set as P < 0.05.
Results
Clinical characteristics
Compared with patients who underwent DIE, patients who underwent total MIME were older (57.41 ± 8.56 vs. 59.88 ± 7.94; P = 0.005), more often had middle third EC (49.6% vs. 67.9%; P < 0.001), and had low BMI (23.76 ± 2.35 vs. 23.16 ± 2.86; P = 0.025). There were no significant differences in gender, CCI, and neoadjuvant therapies between the groups (Table 1).
Table 1.
Preoperative features of patients underwent esophagectomy
| Clinical variables | Total MIME (n = 361) | DIE (n = 115) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 59.88 ± 7.94 | 57.41 ± 8.56 | 0.005 |
| Male (%) | 286 (79.2) | 93 (80.9) | 0.703 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 23.16 ± 2.86 | 23.76 ± 2.35 | 0.025 |
| Charlson comorbidity index | 0.34 ± 0.82 | 0.29 ± 0.71 | 0.529 |
| Location (%) | <0.001 | ||
| Upper third | 74 (20.5) | 48 (41.7) | ND |
| Middle third | 245 (67.9) | 57 (49.6) | ND |
| Lower third | 42 (11.6) | 10 (8.7) | ND |
| Neoadjuvant CT and/or RT (%) | 33 (9.1) | 5 (5.2) | 0.182 |
CT, chemotherapy; DIE, dual incision esophagectomy; MIME, minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy; ND, no data; RT, radiotherapy.
Perioperative outcomes of patients
Compared with patients who underwent DIE, patients who underwent total MIME had longer surgical duration (310 minutes vs. 353 minutes; P < 0.001) and greater hospital expenses (¥65 600 vs. ¥103 000; P < 0.001). However, there was significantly less intraoperative blood loss (208 mL vs. 287 mL; P < 0.001) in the total MIME group compared with the DIE group. There were no significant differences in the number of LNs harvested, major or minor complication rates, and the length of hospital stay between the groups (Table 2).
Table 2.
Postoperative features of patients who underwent esophagectomy
| Clinical variables | Total MIME (n = 361) | DIE (n = 115) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duration of surgery (min) | 353 ± 101 | 310 ± 75 | <0.001 |
| Estimated blood loss (mL) | 208 ± 169 | 287 ± 76 | <0.001 |
| Number of lymph nodes harvested | 24 ± 11 | 23 ± 11 | 0.366 |
| T category (%) | <0.001 | ||
| T0–1 | 89 (24.7) | 36 (31.3) | ND |
| T2 | 115 (31.9) | 15 (13.0) | ND |
| T3 | 145 (40.2) | 30 (26.1) | ND |
| T4 | 12 (3.3) | 34 (29.6) | ND |
| N category (%) | <0.001 | ||
| N0 | 218 (60.4) | 106 (92.2) | ND |
| N1 | 107 (29.6) | 8 (7.0) | ND |
| N2 | 24 (6.6) | 0 | ND |
| N3 | 12 (3.3) | 1 (0.9) | ND |
| Differentiation (%) | 0.308 | ||
| Well differentiated | 35 (9.7) | 17 (14.8) | ND |
| Moderately differentiated | 223 (61.8) | 66 (57.4) | ND |
| Poorly differentiated | 103 (28.5) | 32 (27.8) | ND |
| AJCC staging (%) | 0.037 | ||
| Stage 0 | 1 (0.3) | 2 (1.7) | ND |
| Stage I | 90 (25.0) | 33 (28.7) | ND |
| Stage II | 173 (47.9) | 40 (34.8) | ND |
| Stage III | 97 (26.9) | 40 (34.7) | ND |
| Complications (%) | |||
| Major | 19 (5.3) | 4 (3.5) | 0.437 |
| Minor | 55 (15.2) | 17 (14.8) | 0.906 |
| Pulmonary complications (%) | 11 (3.0) | 4 (3.5) | 0.818 |
| Cardiac complications (%) | 1 (0.3) | 0 | 0.572 |
| Gastrointestinal complications (%) | 52 (14.4) | 12 (10.4) | 0.277 |
| Neurologic/psychiatric complications (%) | 1 (0.3) | 0 | 0.572 |
| Infection (%) | 1 (0.3) | 2 (1.7) | 0.084 |
| Wound/diaphragm complications (%) | 13 (3.6) | 8 (7.0) | 0.127 |
| Other complications (%) | 4 (1.1) | 2 (1.7) | 0.597 |
| Mortality (%) | 9 (2.5) | 3 (2.6) | 0.6945 |
| Length of hospital stay (days) | 21 ± 12 | 23 ± 11 | 0.073 |
| Hospital expenses (¥) | 103 000 ± 27 932 | 96 200 ± 31 784 | <0.001 |
AJCC, http://www.cancerstaging.org/; DIE, dual incision esophagectomy; MIME, minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy; ND, no data.
Propensity score matching results
In order to eliminate the confounding effects of preoperative variables on the outcomes of EC patients, we conducted propensity score matching analysis. The logistic regression model calculated propensity scores using the approach (MIME or DIE) as the outcome with age, gender, BMI, CCI, tumor location and neoadjuvant radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy, which showed good predictive capacity (c = 0.71). By excluding patients with scores lower than 0.10 (high chance of undergoing DIE) and higher than 0.90 (high chance of undergoing MIME), we achieved 1:1 matching, which resulted in a subgroup of 230 patients with a predicted preoperative chance of undergoing esophagectomy. In this subgroup, 115 patients underwent MIME, and 115 patients underwent DIE.
The preoperative characteristics after matching are displayed in Table 3. There were no significant differences in age, gender, BMI, CCI, tumor location, and neoadjuvant radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy between the groups.
Table 3.
Propensity score matching results of preoperative features of patients who underwent esophagectomy
| Clinical variables | Total MIME (n = 115) | DIE (n = 115) | Absolute difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 57.67 ± 7.70 | 57.41 ± 8.56 | 0.2 |
| Male (%) | 286 (79.2) | 93 (80.9) | ND |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 23.81 ± 3.01 | 23.76 ± 2.35 | 0.1 |
| Charlson comorbidity index | 0.34 ± 0.84 | 0.29 ± 0.71 | 0.1 |
| Location (%) | |||
| Upper third | 46 (40.0) | 48 (41.7) | 1.7 |
| Middle third | 58 (50.4) | 57 (49.6) | 0.8 |
| Lower third | 11 (9.6) | 10 (8.7) | 0.9 |
| Neoadjuvant CT and/or RT (%) | 6 (5.2) | 5 (5.2) | 0 |
CT, chemotherapy; DIE, dual incision esophagectomy; MIME, minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy; ND, no data; RT, radiotherapy.
Propensity score matching analysis demonstrated that compared with patients who underwent DIE, patients who underwent total MIME had longer surgical duration (310 minutes vs. 345 minutes; P = 0.002) and greater hospital expenses (¥65 600 vs.¥99 400; P < 0.001). However, there was significantly less intraoperative blood loss (191 mL vs. 287 mL; P < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (20 days vs. 23 days; P = 0.025) in the total MIME group compared with the DIE group. There were no significant differences in number of LNs harvested, or major or minor complication rates between the groups (Table 4).
Table 4.
Propensity score matching results of postoperative features of patients who underwent esophagectomy
| Clinical variables | Total MIME (n = 115) | DIE (n = 115) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duration of surgery (min) | 345 ± 95 | 310 ± 75 | 0.002 |
| Estimated blood loss (mL) | 191 ± 128 | 287 ± 176 | <0.001 |
| Number of lymph nodes harvested | 24 ± 11 | 23 ± 11 | 0.540 |
| T category (%) | <0.001 | ||
| T0–1 | 35(30.5) | 36(31.3) | ND |
| T2 | 33(28.7) | 15(13.0) | ND |
| T3 | 43(37.4) | 30(26.1) | ND |
| T4 | 4(3.5) | 34(29.6) | ND |
| N category (%) | <0.001 | ||
| N0 | 76(66.1) | 106(92.2) | ND |
| N1 | 28(24.3) | 8(7.0) | ND |
| N2 | 5(4.3) | 0 | ND |
| N3 | 6(5.2) | 1(0.9) | ND |
| Differentiation (%) | 0.453 | ||
| Well differentiated | 12(10.4) | 17(14.8) | ND |
| Moderately differentiated | 64(55.7) | 66(57.4) | ND |
| Poorly differentiated | 32(27.8) | 32(27.8) | ND |
| AJCC staging (%) | 0.069 | ||
| Stage 0 | 1(0.9) | 2 (1.7) | ND |
| Stage I | 33 (28.7) | 33 (28.7) | ND |
| Stage II | 58 (50.4) | 40 (34.8) | ND |
| Stage III | 23 (20.1) | 40 (34.7) | ND |
| Complications (%) | |||
| Major | 5 (4.3) | 4 (3.5) | 0.734 |
| Minor | 14 (12.2) | 17 (14.8) | 0.562 |
| Pulmonary complications (%) | 2 (2.6) | 4 (3.5) | 0.701 |
| Cardiac complications (%) | 0 | 0 | –– |
| Gastrointestinal complications (%) | 13 (11.3) | 12 (10.4) | 0.832 |
| Neurologic/psychiatric complications (%) | 0 | 0 | –– |
| Infection (%) | 0 | 2 (1.7) | 0.155 |
| Wound/diaphragm complications (%) | 3 (2.6) | 8 (7.0) | 0.122 |
| Other complications (%) | 0 | 2 (1.7) | 0.155 |
| Mortality (%) | 3 (2.6) | 3 (2.6) | 1.000 |
| Length of hospital stay (days) | 20 ± 10 | 23 ± 11 | 0.014 |
| Hospital expenses (¥) | 99 400 ± 18 290 | 65 600 ± 32 000 | <0.001 |
AJCC, http://www.cancerstaging.org/; DIE, dual incision esophagectomy; MIME, minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy; ND, no data.
Three‐year survival
As shown in Figure 1, there were no significant differences in the three‐year OS (64.1% vs. 73.8%; P = 0.101) or DFS (78.8% vs. 97.2%; P = 0.314) between the groups in unmatched analysis. However, after matching, there was a trend of longer three‐year OS (64.1% vs. 79.5%; P = 0.063) and DFS (65.3% vs. 82.8%; P = 0.058) in the patients who underwent MIME compared with the patients who underwent DIE (Fig 2).
Figure 1.
Survival analysis in unmatched patients after esophagectomy according to surgical procedures. In unmatched analysis, overall three‐year survival rates were 76.6% and 97.2% (P = 0.298) in esophageal cancer patients who underwent dual incision esophagectomy (DIE) and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), respectively. Three‐year (a) overall survival and (b) disease‐free survival.
Figure 2.
Survival analysis in matched patients after esophagectomy according to surgical procedures. After matching analysis, three‐year overall survival rates were 64.1% and 79.5% (P = 0.063) in esophageal cancer patients who underwent dual incision esophagectomy (DIE) and minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), respectively. The three‐year (a) disease‐free survival was 65.3% and (b) overall survival was 82.8% (P = 0.058).
Discussion
In this study, we found that short‐term outcome and three‐year OS and DFS were comparable between the total MIME and DIE groups. However, total MIME was associated with less intraoperative blood loss and shorter hospital stay compared with the DIE approach. The DIE approach was associated with shorter surgical duration and lower hospital expenses. Most importantly, a trend indicated that MIME was associated with better three‐year OS and DFS compared with DIE.
There was no significant difference in postoperative morbidity between the total MIME and DIE groups. Recent meta‐analyses have demonstrated that minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open esophagectomy for resectable EC with reduced morbidities.22, 23 However, the samples in the meta‐analyses were relatively small, with fewer than 500 patients in the open and MIE groups, respectively. Two national studies compared over 800 cases of MIE with over 2000 cases of open esophagectomy, and over 1000 MIE with over 6000 open esophagectomy, respectively, and concluded that MIE resulted in comparable rates of morbidity and mortality as open esophagectomy.24, 25 Therefore, open esophagectomy currently remains the gold standard for most surgical teams.5
In unmatched data, we found that DIE achieved similar oncologic clearance compared with McKeown esophagectomy in EC patients with negative upper mediastinal LNs, which was reflected by a similar number of LNs harvested and similar three‐year OS. Yu et al. also found no significant difference in the five‐year OS and DFS between Ivor Lewis and DIE techniques.12 However, after matching, our study results indicated that MIME had longer three‐year OS and DFS compared with patients who underwent DIE, although no significant difference was reached. Further study is required to investigate the effects of MIME versus DIE for esophageal patients with negative upper mediastinal LNs requiring esophagectomy and neck anastomosis.
Total MIME was associated with less intraoperative blood loss and shorter hospital stay compared with DIE in our study. Recently, Xing et al. reported that esophagectomy Surgical Apgar Score (eSAS) was strongly associated with 30‐day major morbidity after esophagectomy, and the eSAS is based on the intraoperative lowest heart rate, lowest mean arterial pressure, and estimated blood loss intraoperatively.26 From this point of view, less intraoperative blood loss during MIE may decrease the postoperative morbidity rate. On the other hand, less intraoperative bleeding may lessen the need for perioperative transfusion, which may improve long‐term survival in patients who received MIE.27 However, further study is required to clarify the mechanisms that result in less intraoperative blood loss, leading to favorable short‐term outcome and improved long‐term survival in patients undergoing MIE.
The DIE approach was associated with shorter surgical duration and lower hospital expenses compared with total MIME in our study. Not surprisingly, MIE was associated with longer surgical duration in most studies, as a result of the learning curve.20, 24 However, with experience and practice, surgeons should quickly overcome the learning curve.9 MIE requires longer time and consumes greater disposable instrumentation, which results in greater overall cost. Therefore, hospital expenses were significantly higher in cases of MIE compared with open esophagectomy, despite the shorter hospital stay.28 Efforts to reduce the costs associated with the minimally invasive approach are warranted, not only in developed countries but also in developing countries.
The most common surgical approaches to accomplish resection of EC include transhiatal, Ivor Lewis, and McKeown esophagectomy in most Western countries and in Japan.3, 29 In contrast, in China, the most commonly used surgical approaches for the resection of EC include the McKeown and Sweet approaches.7, 11, 30 Recently, the Ivor Lewis and MIE approaches have been increasingly adopted in China.10, 20, 31, 32 Different surgical approaches between China and other countries may be multifactorial. We agree with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, in that the choice of esophageal resection procedure is dictated by the location of the tumor, the available choices for the conduit, the surgeon's experience and preference, and the patient's preference.33
There were two limitations to the current study. Firstly, as this was a retrospective study, the results were obtained from a single medical center, which may limit the generalization of these results. Secondly, only three‐year OS and DFS were compared between the two approaches. Longer follow‐up may be needed to define whether one approach is superior to another.
In conclusion, MIME and DIE yielded comparable short‐term outcomes. However, MIME was associated with better three‐year OS and DFS compared with DIE.
Disclosure
No authors report any conflict of interest.
Acknowledgment
This study was supported by funding from the Capital Health Technology Development Priorities Research project, No. 2014–1‐4021.
References
- 1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet‐Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2015; 65: 87–108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Chen W, Zheng R, Zeng H, Zhang S, He J. Annual report on status of cancer in China, 2011. Chin J Cancer Res 2015; 27: 2–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Kato H, Nakajima M. Treatments for esophageal cancer: A review. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013; 61: 330–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Rustgi AK, El‐Serag HB. Esophageal carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 2499–509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Allum WH, Bonavina L, Cassivi SD et al. Surgical treatments for esophageal cancers. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2014; 1325: 242–68. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Boone J, Livestro DP, Elias SG, Borel Rinkes IH, van Hillegersberg R. International survey on esophageal cancer: Part I surgical techniques. Dis Esophagus 2009; 22: 195–202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Ma J, Zhan C, Wang L et al. The sweet approach is still worthwhile in modern esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 2014; 97: 1728–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Kubo N, Ohira M, Yamashita Y et al. The impact of combined thoracoscopic and laparoscopic surgery on pulmonary complications after radical esophagectomy in patients with resectable esophageal cancer. Anticancer Res 2014; 34: 2399–404. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Mu JW, Gao SG, Xue Q et al. Updated experiences with minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 12873–81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Ma Q, Liu W, Long H et al. Right versus left transthoracic approach for lymph node‐negative esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. J Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 10: 123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Zhang DW, Cheng GY, Huang GJ et al. Operable squamous esophageal cancer: Current results from the East. World J Surg 1994; 18: 347–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Yu Y, Wang Z, Liu XY, Zhu XF, Chen QF. Therapeutic efficacy comparison of two surgical procedures to treat middle thoracic esophageal carcinoma. World J Surg 2010; 34: 272–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 2074–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. J Chron Dis 1987; 40: 373–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Rice TW, Blackstone EH, Rusch VW. 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual: Esophagus and esophagogastric junction. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17: 1721–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Fernandez FG, Falcoz PE, Kozower BD, Salati M, Wright CD, Brunelli A. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons general thoracic surgery databases: Joint standardization of variable definitions and terminology. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 99: 368–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Low DE, Alderson D, Cecconello I et al. International consensus on standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). Ann Surg 2015; 262: 286–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240: 205–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Mu JW, Chen GY, Sun KL et al. Application of video‐assisted thoracic surgery in the standard operation for thoracic tumors. Cancer Biol Med 2013; 10: 28–35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Mu J, Yuan Z, Zhang B et al. Comparative study of minimal invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in a single cancer center. Chin Med J (Engl) 2014; 127: 747–52. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Austin PC. Propensity‐score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: A systematic review and suggestions for improvement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007; 134: 1128–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Zhou C, Zhang L, Wang H et al. Superiority of minimal invasive oesophagectomy in reducing in‐hospital mortality of patients with resectable oesophageal cancer: A meta‐analysis. PLoS One 2015; 10 (7): e0132889. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Xiong WL, Li R, Lei HK, Jiang ZY. Comparison of outcomes between minimally invasive oesophagectomy and open oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer. ANZ J Surg 2015. doi: 10.1111/ans.13334 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Sihag S, Kosinski AS, Gaissert HA, Wright CD, Schipper PH. Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A comparison of early surgical outcomes from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons national database. Ann Thorac Surg 2016; 101: 1281–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Mamidanna R, Bottle A, Aylin P, Faiz O, Hanna GB. Short‐term outcomes following open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer in England: A population‐based national study. Ann Surg 2012; 255: 197–203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Xing XZ, Wang HJ, Qu SN et al. The value of esophagectomy surgical apgar score (eSAS) in predicting the risk of major morbidity after open esophagectomy. J Thorac Dis 2016; 8: 1780–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Kakuta T, Kosugi S, Kanda T et al. Prognostic factors and causes of death in patients cured of esophageal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2014; 21: 1749–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Dhamija A, Dhamija A, Hancock J et al. Minimally invasive oesophagectomy more expensive than open despite shorter length of stay. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014; 45: 904–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. D'Amico TA. Mckeown esophagogastrectomy. J Thorac Dis 2014; 6 (Suppl. 3): S322–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Xie MR, Liu CQ, Guo MF, Mei XY, Sun XH, Xu MQ. Short‐term outcomes of minimally invasive Ivor‐Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2014; 97: 1721–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Wang H, Shen Y, Feng M et al. Outcomes, quality of life, and survival after esophagectomy for squamous cell carcinoma: A propensity score‐matched comparison of operative approaches. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 149: 1006–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Li B, Xiang J, Zhang Y et al. Comparison of Ivor‐Lewis vs Sweet esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 2015; 150: 292–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Ajani JA, D'Amico TA, Almhanna K et al. Esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancers, version 1.2015. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2015; 13: 194–227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]