Cash 2014.
Methods | Study design: retrospective cohort study | |
Participants | Country: USA.
Number eligible: 93.
Number excluded: not stated.
Number analysed: 93.
Average age: 74 years.
Females: 20 (21.5%).
Stage I: 37(39.8%).
Stage II: 22 (23.7%).
Stage III: 34 (36.6%).
Stage IV: not stated
Squamous cell carcinoma: not stated
Adenocarcinoma: not stated
Study design: Retrospective cohort study with historical control
Total follow‐up in months: median: 26 months for laparoscopic oesophagectomy group and 64 months for open oesophagectomy group (survival at 24 months was used for calculation of proportion survived)
ASA: not stated
Location: not stated Inclusion criteria Patients undergoing transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer Exclusion criteria People who had undergone major abdominal surgery. |
|
Interventions | Group 1: laparoscopic transhiatal oesophagectomy (N = 33). Further details: number of ports ‐ not stated; minilaparotomy ‐ incision size not stated; drain use ‐ not stated. Group 2: open transhiatal oesophagectomy (N = 60). Further details: incision size ‐ not stated; drain use ‐ not stated. | |
Outcomes | The outcomes reported were short‐term and long‐term mortality, morbidity, long‐term recurrence, length of hospital stay, and number of lymph nodes harvested. | |
Notes | Proportion of people with cancer: 100% Conversion: 2/33 (6.1%) |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Bias due to confounding | High risk |
Critical risk of bias Comment: The tumour size was smaller in the laparoscopic group but more patients had neo‐adjuvant therapy in the laparoscopic group. |
Bias due to selection of participants to intervention and control | Low risk |
Moderate Comment: This was a consecutive series of laparoscopic oesophagectomies where the surgeon performed all transhiatal oesophagectomies laparoscopically other than for those who had undergone major abdominal surgery after July 2008 |
Bias due to differences in co‐interventions which were different between the groups | Unclear risk |
No information Comment: A historical control was used. It was not clear there were other differences in care of the patient apart from the intervention and control. |
Bias in the measurement of outcomes | Unclear risk |
No information Comment: Information on observer blinding was not available. |
Bias due to missing data | Unclear risk |
No information Comment: This information was not available. |
Bias in selection of the reported findings | Low risk |
Low risk of bias Comment: Mortality and morbidity were reported. |