Original Article
Clinical outcomes of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score- matched analysis
Abstract
Background: Minimally invasive esophagectomy theoretically offers advantages compared with open esophagectomy (OE). The aim of this study was to compare the early- and mid-term outcomes between video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) esophagectomy (VE) and OE in patients with esophageal cancer.
Methods: Between November 2011 and July 2015, a total of 172 patients were divided into two groups depending on the method of esophagectomy: the VE group (n=42) and the OE group (n=130). A propensity analysis that incorporated perioperative variables, such as age, sex, preoperative pulmonary function, Charlson comorbidity index, tumor location, histologic grade of the tumor, pathologic stage and operative procedure (Ivor Lewis or McKeown) was performed, and postoperative outcomes were compared.
Results: Matching based on propensity scores produced 42 patients in each group for the analysis. After propensity matching, there were only two operative mortalities in the OE group, and both died of postoperative pneumonia. The overall incidence of postoperative complications was 38.1% (16 of 42) and 57.1% (24 of 42) in the VE group and in the OE group, respectively (P=0.088). The incidence of pulmonary complications was lower in the VE group than in the OE group (9.5% vs. 40.5%, P=0.004). The 2-year overall survival and disease-free survival were not different between the two groups (74.4% and 69.5% in the VE group, 69.5% and 69.8% in the OE group, P=0.865 and P=0.513, respectively).
Conclusions: In select patients, superior short-term surgical results and equal oncological outcomes were achieved with VE compared with OE.
Methods: Between November 2011 and July 2015, a total of 172 patients were divided into two groups depending on the method of esophagectomy: the VE group (n=42) and the OE group (n=130). A propensity analysis that incorporated perioperative variables, such as age, sex, preoperative pulmonary function, Charlson comorbidity index, tumor location, histologic grade of the tumor, pathologic stage and operative procedure (Ivor Lewis or McKeown) was performed, and postoperative outcomes were compared.
Results: Matching based on propensity scores produced 42 patients in each group for the analysis. After propensity matching, there were only two operative mortalities in the OE group, and both died of postoperative pneumonia. The overall incidence of postoperative complications was 38.1% (16 of 42) and 57.1% (24 of 42) in the VE group and in the OE group, respectively (P=0.088). The incidence of pulmonary complications was lower in the VE group than in the OE group (9.5% vs. 40.5%, P=0.004). The 2-year overall survival and disease-free survival were not different between the two groups (74.4% and 69.5% in the VE group, 69.5% and 69.8% in the OE group, P=0.865 and P=0.513, respectively).
Conclusions: In select patients, superior short-term surgical results and equal oncological outcomes were achieved with VE compared with OE.
