title: Does minimally invasive oesophagectomy provide a benefit in hospital length of stay when compared with open oesophagectomy?
abstract: A best evidence topic in thoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: 'in patients undergoing oesophagectomy, does a minimally invasive approach convey a benefit in hospital length of stay (LOS), when compared to an open approach?' A total of 647 papers were identified, using an a priori defined search strategy; 24 papers represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date, country of publication, patient group, study type, relevant outcomes and key results are tabulated. Of the studies identified, data from two randomized controlled trials were available. The first randomized study compared the use of open thoracotomy and laparotomy versus thoracoscopy and laparoscopy. Those undergoing minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) left hospital on average 3 days earlier than those treated with the open oesophagectomy (OO) technique (P = 0.044). The other randomized trial, which compared thoracotomy with thoracoscopy and laparoscopy, demonstrated a reduction of 1.8 days in the LOS when employing the MIO technique (P < 0.001). With the addition of the remaining 22 non-randomized studies, comprising 3 prospective and 19 retrospective cohort studies, which are heterogeneous with regard to their design, study populations and outcomes; data are available representing 3173 MIO and 25 691 OO procedures. In total, 13 studies (including the randomized trials) demonstrate a significant reduction in hospital LOS associated with MIO; 10 suggest no significant difference between techniques; and only 1 suggests a significantly greater length of stay associated with MIO. The only two randomized trials comparing MIO and OO demonstrated a reduction in length of stay in the MIO group, without compromising survival or increasing complication rates. All bar one of the non-randomized studies demonstrated either a significant reduction in length of stay with MIO or no difference. The benefit in reduced length of stay was not at the cost of worsened survival or increased complications, and conversion rates in all studies were low.
authors.affiliation: Medical School, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
authors.forename: Paul
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Rodham
authors.affiliation: Department of Colorectal Surgery, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
authors.forename: Jonathan A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Batty
authors.affiliation: Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK philip.mcelnay@ncl.ac.uk.
authors.forename: Philip J
authors.initials: PJ
authors.lastname: McElnay
authors.affiliation: Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
authors.forename: Arul
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Immanuel
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D019985:Benchmarking; D004938:Esophageal Neoplasms / Q000401:mortality / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D016629:Esophagectomy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods* / Q000401:mortality; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000009:adverse effects; D007902:Length of Stay; D008297:Male; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000209:etiology; D012307:Risk Factors; D013906:Thoracoscopy / Q000009:adverse effects; D013908:Thoracotomy / Q000009:adverse effects; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome
keywords: Length of stay; Minimally invasive; Oesophagectomy; Open; Outcome