Advertisement

Open versus hybrid versus totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Published:January 17, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.12.051

      Abstract

      Background

      Hybrid and minimally invasive approaches have emerged as less invasive alternatives to open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcomes between open (OE), hybrid (HE), and totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE).

      Methods

      A systematic literature search was performed to analyze outcomes after OE, HE, and TMIE with intrathoracic anastomosis. Main outcomes included anastomotic leak rate, overall morbidity, and 30-day mortality. A meta-analysis of proportions was used to assess the effect of each approach on different outcomes.

      Results

      A total of 130 studies comprising 16,053 patients were included for analysis; 8081 (50.3%) underwent OE, 1524 (9.5%) HE, and 6448 (40.2%) TMIE. The risk of anastomotic leak was lower after OE (odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.81; P < .0001). Overall morbidity rate was 45% (95% CI, 38%-52%) after OE, 40% (95% CI, 25%-59%) after HE, and 37% (95% CI, 32%-43%) after TMIE. Risk estimation showed higher odds of postoperative mortality after OE (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.76-2.81; P < .0001) and HE (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.32-2.81; P < .001), compared with TMIE. Median length of hospital stay (LOS) was 14.1 (range, 8-28), 12.5 (range, 8-18), and 11.9 (range, 7-30) days after OE, HE and TMIE, respectively (P = .003).

      Conclusions

      HE and TMIE are associated with lower rates of overall morbidity, reduced postoperative mortality, and shorter LOS, compared with OE. TMIE is associated with lower mortality rates and shorter LOS than HE. Further efforts are needed to widely embrace TMIE in a safe manner.

      Graphical abstract

      Key Words

      Abbreviations and Acronyms:

      HE (hybrid esophagectomy), IRB (institutional review board), LOS (length of hospital stay), OE (open esophagectomy), OR (odds ratio), TMIE (totally minimally invasive esophagectomy)
      Figure thumbnail fx2
      Surgical outcomes; comparison of open, hybrid, and minimally invasive Ivor Lewis approaches.
      Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy is associated with reduced postoperative mortality and shorter length of hospital stay, compared with open and hybrid esophagectomy.
      A comprehensive analysis of reported outcomes after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy was done. Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy was associated with lower rates of overall morbidity, postoperative mortality, and shorter hospital stay, compared with open esophagectomy. Also, totally minimally invasive esophagectomy was associated with lower rates of mortality and shorter hospital stay than hybrid esophagectomy.
      See Commentary on page e255.
      Esophageal cancer is one of the most frequent causes of cancer mortality worldwide and has a high rate of disability-adjusted life-years after diagnosis.
      Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration
      Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study.
      ,
      GBD 2017 Oesophageal Cancer Collaborators
      The global, regional, and national burden of oesophageal cancer and its attributable risk factors in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017.
      According to recent cancer statistics, it ranks seventh in terms of incidence and sixth in overall mortality.
      • Bray F.
      • Ferlay J.
      • Soerjomataram I.
      • Siegel R.L.
      • Torre L.A.
      • Jemal A.
      Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries.
      Although esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is the most prevalent histological type worldwide, a increasing prevalence of esophageal adenocarcinoma has been reported in Western countries.
      • Umar S.
      • Fleischer D.
      Esophageal cancer: epidemiology, pathogenesis and prevention.
      ,
      • Ilson D.H.
      • van Hillegersberg R.
      Management of patients with adenocarcinoma or squamous cancer of the esophagus.
      Esophagectomy is a fundamental mainstay for esophageal cancer treatment.
      • Law S.
      • Wong J.
      What is appropriate treatment for carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus?.
      The Ivor Lewis technique, which was first described in 1946, originally involved a laparotomy and right thoracotomy with an intrathoracic anastomosis.
      • Lewis I.
      The surgical treatment of carcinoma of the oesophagus; with special reference to a new operation for growths of the middle third.
      Since the introduction of endoscopic subtotal esophagectomy using a right thoracoscopic approach in 1992,
      • Cuschieri A.
      • Shimi S.
      • Banting S.
      Endoscopic oesophagectomy through a right thoracoscopic approach.
      minimally invasive surgery has been embraced by several centers in the past 2 decades.
      • Tapias L.F.
      • Morse C.R.
      A preliminary experience with minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      • Zhang Z.
      • Xu M.
      • Guo M.
      • Liu X.
      Long-term outcomes of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagostomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: compared with open approach.
      • Mann C.
      • Berlth F.
      • Hadzijusufovic E.
      • Lang H.
      • Grimminger P.P.
      Minimally invasive esophagectomy: clinical evidence and surgical techniques.
      • Meredith K.L.
      • Maramara T.
      • Blinn P.
      • Lee D.
      • Huston J.
      • Shridhar R.
      Comparative perioperative outcomes by esophagectomy surgical technique.
      • Naffouje S.A.
      • Salloum R.H.
      • Khalaf Z.
      • Salti G.I.
      Outcomes of open versus minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for cancer: a propensity-score matched analysis of NSQIP database.
      • Luketich J.D.
      • Pennathur A.
      • Franchetti Y.
      • Catalano P.J.
      • Swanson S.
      • Sugarbaker D.J.
      • et al.
      Minimally invasive esophagectomy: results of a prospective phase II multicenter trial-the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (E2202) study.
      However, because a totally minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy is a challenging and demanding procedure, some esophageal surgeons still perform open (OE) or hybrid esophagectomy (HE).
      • Seesing M.F.J.
      • Gisbertz S.S.
      • Goense L.
      • van Hillegersberg R.
      • Kroon H.M.
      • Lagarde S.M.
      • et al.
      A propensity score matched analysis of open versus minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy in the Netherlands.
      • Briez N.
      • Piessen G.
      • Torres F.
      • Lebuffe G.
      • Triboulet J.P.
      • Mariette C.
      Effects of hybrid minimally invasive oesophagectomy on major postoperative pulmonary complications.
      • Mariette C.
      • Markar S.R.
      • Dabakuyo-Yonli T.S.
      • Meunier B.
      • Pezet D.
      • Collet D.
      • et al.
      Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
      • Voron T.
      • Lintis A.
      • Piessen G.
      Hybrid esophagectomy.
      • Nuytens F.
      • Dabakuyo-Yonli T.S.
      • Meunier B.
      • Gagnière J.
      • Collet D.
      • D'Journo X.B.
      • et al.
      Five-year survival outcomes of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy in esophageal cancer: results of the MIRO randomized clinical trial.
      • van Workum F.
      • Klarenbeek B.R.
      • Baranov N.
      • Rovers M.M.
      • Rosman C.
      Totally minimally invasive esophagectomy versus hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.
      The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare surgical outcomes between OE, HE, and totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (TMIE).

      Methods

      Data Sources

      A systematic literature review of articles on OE, HE, and totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. An electronic search in the Medline database was performed using the following key terms: “Ivor Lewis,” “Transthoracic esophagectomy,” “Laparoscopy,” “Thoracoscopy,” “Robotic,” “Minimally invasive esophagectomy,” “Minimally invasive esophageal surgery,” and “Robot-assisted esophagectomy.” The institutional review board (IRB) approved this study (IRB approval by Hospital Alemán of Buenos Aires on May 10, 2021. Systematic review and meta-analyses are approved by the IRB of our institution without need for IRB approval number).

      Study Selection and Data Extraction

      Eligible studies included those that analyzed outcomes for patients who underwent OE, HE, and TMIE. Only patients with an intrathoracic anastomosis were included. OE was defined as laparotomy with thoracotomy. HE was defined as either laparoscopy with thoracotomy or laparotomy with thoracoscopy. TMIE included patients who underwent laparoscopic with thoracoscopic or robot-assisted esophagectomy.
      The search strategy was restricted to studies on humans, reported in English, and published between 2000 and 2020. The titles and abstracts identified in the literature search were independently screened by 2 reviewers (C.B.H. and C.A.A.). For studies that included different types of approach (eg, OE, HE, and TMIE) in the same publication, only those that reported outcomes for each subgroup of patients were included for analysis. In cases in which multiple publications used an overlapping pool of patients, only the larger studies were included.
      A total of 4467 articles were initially screened. After removing duplicates and articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria, 4401 articles were reviewed by both authors on the basis of the methodological quality of the publications. Discrepancies between the 2 reviewers were resolved by discussion and consensus with the senior author (F.S.). Finally, 130 articles were included for the meta-analysis. The flow chart on the selection of studies is shown in Figure E1.
      The data were carefully evaluated and extracted independently from all of the eligible publications. Information retrieved from the studies included author, publication year, study design, population size, demographic variables, use of neoadjuvant therapy, surgical approach, operative time, anastomotic leak rate, overall morbidity, pneumonia, arrhythmia, mortality, and length of hospital stay (LOS).
      Mortality was defined as death before discharge from hospital or within the first 30 postoperative days. From the 130 studies that reported anastomotic leakage rates, 62 defined the diagnosis of anastomotic leak on the basis of at least 1 of the following: radiographic findings, clinical symptoms, endoscopy, methylene blue test, or operative finding.
      • Ahmadi N.
      • Crnic A.
      • Seely A.J.
      • Sundaresan S.R.
      • Villeneuve P.J.
      • Maziak D.E.
      • et al.
      Impact of surgical approach on perioperative and long-term outcomes following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
      • Asteriou C.
      • Barbetakis N.
      • Lalountas M.
      • Kleontas A.
      • Tsilikas C.
      Modified pleural tenting for prevention of anastomotic leak after Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy.
      • Beasley W.D.
      • Jefferies M.T.
      • Gilmour J.
      • Manson J.M.
      A single surgeon's series of transthoracic oesophageal resections.
      • Bonavina L.
      • Scolari F.
      • Aiolfi A.
      • Bonitta G.
      • Sironi A.
      • Saino G.
      • et al.
      Early outcome of thoracoscopic and hybrid esophagectomy: propensity-matched comparative analysis.
      • Brinkmann S.
      • Chang D.H.
      • Kuhr K.
      • Hoelscher A.H.
      • Spiro J.
      • Bruns C.J.
      • et al.
      Stenosis of the celiac trunk is associated with anastomotic leak after Ivor–Lewis esophagectomy.
      ,
      • Brown A.M.
      • Pucci M.J.
      • Berger A.C.
      • Tatarian T.
      • Evans N.R.
      • Rosato E.L.
      • et al.
      A standardized comparison of peri-operative complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy: Ivor Lewis versus McKeown.
      • Campbell C.
      • Reames M.K.
      • Robinson M.
      • Symanowski J.
      • Salo J.C.
      Conduit vascular evaluation is associated with reduction in anastomotic leak after esophagectomy.
      • Campos G.M.
      • Jablons D.
      • Brown L.M.
      • Ramirez R.M.
      • Rabl C.
      • Theodore P.
      A safe and reproducible anastomotic technique for minimally invasive Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy: the circular-stapled anastomosis with the trans-oral anvil.
      • Cerfolio R.J.
      • Wei B.
      • Hawn M.T.
      • Minnich D.J.
      Robotic esophagectomy for cancer: early results and lessons learned.
      • Dalton B.G.A.
      • Ali A.A.
      • Crandall M.
      • Awad Z.T.
      Near infrared perfusion assessment of gastric conduit during minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      • de la Fuente S.G.
      • Weber J.
      • Hoffe S.E.
      • Shridhar R.
      • Karl R.
      • Meredith K.L.
      Initial experience from a large referral center with robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy for oncologic purposes.
      • Deldycke A.
      • Van Daele E.
      • Ceelen W.
      • Van Nieuwenhove Y.
      • Pattyn P.
      Functional outcome after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for cancer.
      • Goense L.
      • van Rossum P.S.N.
      • Weijs T.J.
      • van Det M.J.
      • Nieuwenhuijzen G.A.
      • Luyer M.D.
      • et al.
      Aortic calcification increases the risk of anastomotic leakage after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.
      • Godiris-Petit G.
      • Munoz-Bongrand N.
      • Honigman I.
      • Cattan P.
      • Sarfati E.
      Minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer: prospective evaluation of laparoscopic gastric mobilization.
      • Griffin S.M.
      • Shaw I.H.
      • Dresner S.M.
      Early complications after Ivor Lewis subtotal esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy: risk factors and management.
      • Guo W.
      • Ma L.
      • Zhang Y.
      • Ma X.
      • Yang S.
      • Zhu X.
      • et al.
      Totally minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy with single-utility incision video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for treatment of mid-lower esophageal cancer.
      • Harustiak T.
      • Pazdro A.
      • Snajdauf M.
      • Stolz A.
      • Lischke R.
      Anastomotic leak and stricture after hand-sewn versus linear-stapled intrathoracic oesophagogastric anastomosis: single-centre analysis of 415 oesophagectomies.
      • Hölscher A.H.
      • Schneider P.M.
      • Gutschow C.
      • Schröder W.
      Laparoscopic ischemic conditioning of the stomach for esophageal replacement.
      • Jaroszewski D.E.
      • Williams D.G.
      • Fleischer D.E.
      • Ross H.J.
      • Romero Y.
      • Harold K.L.
      An early experience using the technique of transoral OrVil EEA stapler for minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy.
      • Junemann-Ramirez M.
      • Awan M.Y.
      • Khan Z.M.
      • Rahamim J.S.
      Anastomotic leakage post-esophagogastrectomy for esophageal carcinoma: retrospective analysis of predictive factors, management and influence on longterm survival in a high volume centre.
      • Kang N.
      • Zhang R.
      • Ge W.
      • Si P.
      • Jiang M.
      • Huang Y.
      • et al.
      Major complications of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy using the purse string-stapled anastomotic technique in 215 patients with oesophageal carcinoma.
      • Karl R.C.
      • Schreiber R.
      • Boulware D.
      • Baker S.
      • Coppola D.
      Factors affecting morbidity, mortality, and survival in patients undergoing Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy.
      • Kesler K.A.
      • Ramchandani N.K.
      • Jalal S.I.
      • Stokes S.M.
      • Mankins M.R.
      • Ceppa D.
      • et al.
      Outcomes of a novel intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomotic technique.
      • Kim K.
      • Park J.S.
      • Seo H.
      Early outcomes of video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) Ivor Lewis operation for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: the extracorporeal anastomosis technique.
      • Klink C.D.
      • Binnebösel M.
      • Otto J.
      • Boehm G.
      • von Trotha K.T.
      • Hilgers R.D.
      • et al.
      Intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis after resection of esophageal cancer: a matched pair analysis of 72 patients in a single center study.
      • Kono K.
      • Sugai H.
      • Omata H.
      • Fujii H.
      Transient bloodletting of the short gastric vein in the reconstructed gastric tube improves gastric microcirculation during esophagectomy.
      • Luechakiettisak P.
      • Kasetsunthorn S.
      Comparison of hand-sewn and stapled in esophagogastric anastomosis after esophageal cancer resection: a prospective randomized study.
      • Miller D.L.
      • Helms G.A.
      • Mayfield W.R.
      Evaluation of esophageal anastomotic integrity with serial pleural amylase levels.
      • Munitiz V.
      • Martinez-de-Haro L.F.
      • Ortiz A.
      • Ruiz-de-Angulo D.
      • Pastor P.
      • Parrilla P.
      Effectiveness of a written clinical pathway for enhanced recovery after transthoracic (Ivor Lewis) oesophagectomy.
      • Nguyen N.T.
      • Hinojosa M.W.
      • Smith B.R.
      • Chang K.J.
      • Gray J.
      • Hoyt D.
      Minimally invasive esophagectomy: lessons learned from 104 operations.
      • Noble F.
      • Kelly J.J.
      • Bailey I.S.
      • Byrne J.P.
      • Underwood T.J.
      South Coast Cancer Collaboration–Oesophago-Gastric (SC3-OG). A prospective comparison of totally minimally invasive versus open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      • Ott K.
      • Bader F.G.
      • Lordick F.
      • Feith M.
      • Bartels H.
      • Siewert J.R.
      Surgical factors influence the outcome after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: a consecutive series of 240 patients at an experienced center.
      • Raz D.J.
      • Tedesco P.
      • Herbella F.A.
      • Nipomnick I.
      • Way L.W.
      • Patti M.G.
      Side-to-side stapled intra-thoracic esophagogastric anastomosis reduces the incidence of leaks and stenosis.
      • Robertson S.A.
      • Skipworth R.J.
      • Clarke D.L.
      • Crofts T.J.
      • Lee A.
      • de Beaux A.C.
      • et al.
      Ventilatory and intensive care requirements following oesophageal resection.
      • Safranek P.M.
      • Sujendran V.
      • Baron R.
      • Warner N.
      • Blesing C.
      • Maynard N.D.
      Oxford experience with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgical resection for esophageal adenocarcinomas and squamous cell tumors.
      • Salem A.I.
      • Thau M.R.
      • Strom T.J.
      • Abbott A.M.
      • Saeed N.
      • Almhanna K.
      • et al.
      Effect of body mass index on operative outcome after robotic-assisted Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy: retrospective analysis of 129 cases at a single high-volume tertiary care center.
      • Sayir F.
      • Cobanoğlu U.
      • Sehitoğulları A.
      The use of LigaSure vessel sealing system in Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      • Schröder W.
      • Hölscher A.H.
      • Bludau M.
      • Vallböhmer D.
      • Bollschweiler E.
      • Gutschow C.
      Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy with and without laparoscopic conditioning of the gastric conduit.
      • Sdralis E.
      • Tzaferai A.
      • Davakis S.
      • Syllaios A.
      • Kordzadeh A.
      • Lorenzi B.
      • et al.
      Reinforcement of intrathoracic oesophago-gastric anastomosis with fibrin sealant (Tisseel®) in oesophagectomy for cancer: a prospective comparative study.
      • Stenstra M.H.B.C.
      • van Workum F.
      • van den Wildenberg F.J.H.
      • Polat F.
      • Rosman C.
      Evolution of the surgical technique of minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy: description according to the IDEAL framework.
      • Stilidi I.
      • Davydov M.
      • Bokhyan V.
      • Suleymanov E.
      Subtotal esophagectomy with extended 2-field lymph node dissection for thoracic esophageal cancer.
      • Straatman J.
      • van der Wielen N.
      • Cuesta M.A.
      • Daams F.
      • Roig Garcia J.
      • Bonavina L.
      • et al.
      Minimally invasive versus open esophageal resection: three-year follow-up of the previously reported randomized controlled trial: the TIME trial.
      • Strosberg D.S.
      • Merritt R.E.
      • Perry K.A.
      Preventing anastomotic complications: early results of laparoscopic gastric devascularization two weeks prior to minimally invasive esophagectomy.
      • Suttie S.A.
      • Nanthakumaran S.
      • Mofidi R.
      • Rapson T.
      • Gilbert F.J.
      • Thompson A.M.
      • et al.
      The impact of operative approach for oesophageal cancer on outcome: the transhiatal approach may influence circumferential margin involvement.
      • Tapias L.F.
      • Morse C.R.
      Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: description of a learning curve.
      • Tapias L.F.
      • Mathisen D.J.
      • Wright C.D.
      • Wain J.C.
      • Gaissert H.A.
      • Muniappan A.
      • et al.
      Outcomes with open and minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy after neoadjuvant therapy.
      • Trugeda S.
      • Fernández-Díaz M.J.
      • Rodríguez-Sanjuán J.C.
      • Palazuelos C.M.
      • Fernández-Escalante C.
      • Gómez-Fleitas M.
      Initial results of robot-assisted Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy with intrathoracic hand-sewn anastomosis in the prone position.
      • van Workum F.
      • Slaman A.E.
      • van Berge Henegouwen M.I.
      • Gisbertz S.S.
      • Kouwenhoven E.A.
      • van Det M.J.
      • et al.
      Propensity score-matched analysis comparing minimally invasive Ivor Lewis versus minimally invasive Mckeown esophagectomy.
      • Wang F.
      • Zhang H.
      • Zheng Y.
      • Wang Z.
      • Geng Y.
      • Wang Y.
      Intrathoracic side-to-side esophagogastrostomy with a linear stapler and barbed suture in robot-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      • Wang L.
      • Milman S.
      • Ng T.
      Performance of the transoral circular stapler for oesophagogastrectomy after induction therapy.
      • Woodard G.A.
      • Crockard J.C.
      • Clary-Macy C.
      • Zoon-Besselink C.T.
      • Jones K.
      • Korn W.M.
      • et al.
      Hybrid minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation yields excellent long-term survival outcomes with minimal morbidity.
      • Wu J.
      • Chai Y.
      • Zhou X.M.
      • Chen Q.X.
      • Yan F.L.
      Ivor Lewis subtotal esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy for squamous cell carcinoma of the lower thoracic esophagus.
      • Wu Z.
      • Wu M.
      • Wang Q.
      • Zhan T.
      • Wang L.
      • Pan S.
      • et al.
      Home enteral nutrition after minimally invasive esophagectomy can improve quality of life and reduce the risk of malnutrition.
      • Zhan B.
      • Chen J.
      • Du S.
      • Xiong Y.
      • Liu J.
      Using the hand-sewn purse-string stapled anastomotic technique for minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      • Zhao Y.
      • Jiao W.
      • Zhao J.
      • Wang X.
      • Luo Y.
      • Wang Y.
      Anastomosis in minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy via two ports provides equivalent perioperative outcomes to open.
      • Kukar M.
      • Ben-David K.
      • Peng J.S.
      • Attwood K.
      • Thomas R.M.
      • Hennon M.
      • et al.
      Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with linear stapled anastomosis associated with low leak and stricture rates.
      • Shen X.
      • Chen T.
      • Shi X.
      • Zheng M.
      • Zhou Z.Y.
      • Qiu H.T.
      • et al.
      Modified reverse-puncture anastomotic technique vs. traditional technique for total minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.
      • Souche R.
      • Nayeri M.
      • Chati R.
      • Huet E.
      • Donici I.
      • Tuech J.J.
      • et al.
      Thoracoscopy in prone position with two-lung ventilation compared to conventional thoracotomy during Ivor Lewis procedure: a multicenter case-control study.
      • Tagkalos E.
      • Goense L.
      • Hoppe-Lotichius M.
      • Ruurda J.P.
      • Babic B.
      • Hadzijusufovic E.
      • et al.
      Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer: a propensity-matched analysis.
      • Wang W.P.
      • Chen L.Q.
      • Zhang H.L.
      • Yang Y.S.
      • He S.L.
      • Yuan Y.
      • et al.
      Modified intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy with minimally invasive robot-assisted Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for cancer.
      • Zhang H.
      • Wang Z.
      • Zheng Y.
      • Geng Y.
      • Wang F.
      • Chen L.Q.
      • et al.
      Robotic side-to-side and end-to-side stapled esophagogastric anastomosis of Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for cancer.
      ,
      • Wang Q.
      • Wu Z.
      • Zhan T.
      • Fang S.
      • Zhang S.
      • Shen G.
      • et al.
      Comparison of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and left transthoracic esophagectomy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients: a propensity score-matched analysis.
      The remaining 68 studies did not report how the anastomotic leak was defined or diagnosed.
      • Zhang Z.
      • Xu M.
      • Guo M.
      • Liu X.
      Long-term outcomes of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagostomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: compared with open approach.
      ,
      • Ambrus R.
      • Svendsen L.B.
      • Secher N.H.
      • Rünitz K.
      • Frederiksen H.J.
      • Svendsen M.B.
      • et al.
      A reduced gastric corpus microvascular blood flow during Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy detected by laser speckle contrast imaging technique.
      • Asti E.
      • Bernardi D.
      • Bonitta G.
      • Bonavina L.
      Outcomes of transhiatal and intercostal pleural drain after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: comparative analysis of two consecutive patient cohorts.
      • Berkelmans G.H.K.
      • Fransen L.
      • Weijs T.J.
      • Lubbers M.
      • Nieuwenhuijzen G.A.P.
      • Ruurda J.P.
      • et al.
      The long-term effects of early oral feeding following minimal invasive esophagectomy.
      • Berlth F.
      • Plum P.S.
      • Chon S.H.
      • Gutschow C.A.
      • Bollschweiler E.
      • Hölscher A.H.
      Total minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma reduces postoperative pain and pneumonia compared to hybrid esophagectomy.
      • Bizekis C.
      • Kent M.S.
      • Luketich J.D.
      • Buenaventura P.O.
      • Landreneau R.J.
      • Schuchert M.J.
      • et al.
      Initial experience with minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      • Bjelovic M.
      • Babic T.
      • Spica B.
      • Gunjic D.
      • Veselinovic M.
      • Trajkovic G.
      Could hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy improve the treatment results of esophageal cancer?.
      • Blackmon S.H.
      • Correa A.M.
      • Wynn B.
      • Hofstetter W.L.
      • Martin L.W.
      • Mehran R.J.
      • et al.
      Propensity-matched analysis of three techniques for intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis.
      • Blank S.
      • Schmidt T.
      • Heger P.
      • Strowitzki M.J.
      • Sisic L.
      • Heger U.
      • et al.
      Surgical strategies in true adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG II): thoracoabdominal or abdominal approach?.
      • Bludau M.
      • Hölscher A.H.
      • Vallböhmer D.
      • Metzger R.
      • Bollschweiler E.
      • Schröder W.
      Vascular endothelial growth factor expression following ischemic conditioning of the gastric conduit.
      • Bongiolatti S.
      • Annecchiarico M.
      • Di Marino M.
      • Boffi B.
      • Borgianni S.
      • Gonfiotti A.
      • et al.
      Robot-sewn Ivor-Lewis anastomosis: preliminary experience and technical details.
      • Cerfolio R.J.
      • Bryant A.S.
      • Canon C.L.
      • Dhawan R.
      • Eloubeidi M.A.
      Is botulinum toxin injection of the pylorus during Ivor Lewis [corrected] esophagogastrectomy the optimal drainage strategy?.
      • Chen G.
      • Wang Z.
      • Liu X.Y.
      • Liu F.Y.
      Recurrence pattern of squamous cell carcinoma in the middle thoracic esophagus after modified Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.
      • D'Journo X.B.
      • Doddoli C.
      • Michelet P.
      • Loundou A.
      • Trousse D.
      • Giudicelli R.
      • et al.
      Transthoracic esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus: standard versus extended two-field mediastinal lymphadenectomy?.
      • Duan X.F.
      • Yue J.
      • Tang P.
      • Shang X.B.
      • Jiang H.J.
      • Yu Z.T.
      Lymph node dissection for Siewert II esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma: a retrospective study of 3 surgical procedures.
      • Fares K.M.
      • Mohamed S.A.
      • Hamza H.M.
      • Sayed D.M.
      • Hetta D.F.
      Effect of thoracic epidural analgesia on pro-inflammatory cytokines in patients subjected to protective lung ventilation during Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      • Findlay L.
      • Yao C.
      • Bennett D.H.
      • Byrom R.
      • Davies N.
      Non-inferiority of minimally invasive oesophagectomy: an 8-year retrospective case series.
      • Fritz S.
      • Feilhauer K.
      • Schaudt A.
      • Killguss H.
      • Esianu E.
      • Hennig R.
      • et al.
      Pylorus drainage procedures in thoracoabdominal esophagectomy - a single-center experience and review of the literature.
      • Grimminger P.P.
      • Tagkalos E.
      • Hadzijusufovic E.
      • Corvinus F.
      • Babic B.
      • Lang H.
      Change from hybrid to fully minimally invasive and robotic esophagectomy is possible without compromises.
      • Hamouda A.H.
      • Forshaw M.J.
      • Tsigritis K.
      • Jones G.E.
      • Noorani A.S.
      • Rohatgi A.
      • et al.
      Perioperative outcomes after transition from conventional to minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in a specialized center.
      • Hawasli A.
      • Camero L.
      • Williams T.
      • Ambrosi G.
      • Sahly M.
      • Demos D.
      • et al.
      The original Ivor Lewis two stage esophagectomy revisited in the era of minimally invasive surgery.
      • Homesh N.A.
      • Alsabahi A.A.
      • Al-Agmar M.H.
      • Alwashaly A.A.
      • Valenzuela R.E.
      • Alhadid M.A.
      • et al.
      Transhiatal versus transthoracic resection for oesophageal carcinoma in Yemen.
      • Hummel R.
      • Mees S.T.
      • Smith L.
      • Jamieson G.G.
      • Kiroff G.
      • Shenfine J.
      Quality and outcomes of synchronous two-team Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy: revisiting a variant technique.
      • Jensen L.S.
      • Pilegaard H.K.
      • Puho E.
      • Pahle E.
      • Melsen N.C.
      Outcome after transthoracic resection of carcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophago-gastric junction.
      • Kauppi J.
      • Räsänen J.
      • Sihvo E.
      • Huuhtanen R.
      • Nelskylä K.
      • Salo J.
      Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: clinical outcomes for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma.
      • Kawoosa N.U.
      • Dar A.M.
      • Sharma M.L.
      • Ahangar A.G.
      • Lone G.N.
      • Bhat M.A.
      • et al.
      Transthoracic versus transhiatal esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma: experience from a single tertiary care institution.
      • Lee J.J.
      • Kim G.H.
      • Kim J.A.
      • Yang M.
      • Ahn H.J.
      • Sim W.S.
      • et al.
      Comparison of pulmonary morbidity using sevoflurane or propofol-remifentanil anesthesia in an Ivor Lewis operation.
      • Li B.
      • Xiang J.
      • Zhang Y.
      • Li H.
      • Zhang J.
      • Sun Y.
      • et al.
      Comparison of Ivor-Lewis vs Sweet esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
      • Li H.
      • Hu B.
      • You B.
      • Miao J.B.
      • Fu Y.L.
      • Chen Q.R.
      Combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: initial experience from China.
      • Lindner K.
      • Fritz M.
      • Haane C.
      • Senninger N.
      • Palmes D.
      • Hummel R.
      Postoperative complications do not affect long-term outcome in esophageal cancer patients.
      • Luketich J.D.
      • Pennathur A.
      • Awais O.
      • Levy R.M.
      • Keeley S.
      • Shende M.
      • et al.
      Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients.
      • Ma J.
      • Zhan C.
      • Wang L.
      • Jiang W.
      • Zhang Y.
      • Shi Y.
      • et al.
      The sweet approach is still worthwhile in modern esophagectomy.
      • Malaisrie S.C.
      • Untch B.
      • Aranha G.V.
      • Mohideen N.
      • Hantel A.
      • Pickleman J.
      Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer: experience at a single institution.
      • Mariette C.
      • Markar S.R.
      • Dabakuyo-Yonli T.S.
      • Meunier B.
      • Pezet D.
      • Collet D.
      • et al.
      Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
      • McCahill L.E.
      • May M.
      • Morrow J.B.
      • Khandavalli S.
      • Shabahang B.
      • Kemmeter P.
      • et al.
      Esophagectomy outcomes at a mid-volume cancer center utilizing prospective multidisciplinary care and a 2-surgeon team approach.
      • Mei X.
      • Xu M.
      • Guo M.
      • Xie M.
      • Liu C.
      • Wang Z.
      Minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy is a feasible and safe approach for patients with oesophageal cancer.
      • Meredith K.
      • Blinn P.
      • Maramara T.
      • Takahashi C.
      • Huston J.
      • Shridhar R.
      Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive and robotic-assisted esophagectomy.
      • Mu J.
      • Yuan Z.
      • Zhang B.
      • Li N.
      • Lyu F.
      • Mao Y.
      • et al.
      Comparative study of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in a single cancer center.
      • Mungo B.
      • Lidor A.O.
      • Stem M.
      • Molena D.
      Early experience and lessons learned in a new minimally invasive esophagectomy program.
      • Pan S.
      • Wang L.
      • Wu M.
      • Wang Q.
      • Shen G.
      • Chen G.
      A single intercostal space thoracoscopic approach for minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      • Peng J.
      • Wang W.P.
      • Yuan Y.
      • Hu Y.
      • Wang Y.
      • Chen L.Q.
      Optimal extent of lymph node dissection for Siewert type II esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma.
      • Pham T.H.
      • Perry K.A.
      • Dolan J.P.
      • Schipper P.
      • Sukumar M.
      • Sheppard B.C.
      • et al.
      Comparison of perioperative outcomes after combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy and open Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.
      • Schröder W.
      • Bollschweiler E.
      • Kossow C.
      • Hölscher A.H.
      Preoperative risk analysis--a reliable predictor of postoperative outcome after transthoracic esophagectomy?.
      • Sihag S.
      • Wright C.D.
      • Wain J.C.
      • Gaissert H.A.
      • Lanuti M.
      • Allan J.S.
      • et al.
      Comparison of perioperative outcomes following open versus minimally invasive Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy at a single, high-volume centre.
      • Thomay A.A.
      • Snyder J.A.
      • Edmondson D.M.
      • Scott W.J.
      Initial results of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy after induction chemoradiation (50.4 Gy) for esophageal cancer.
      • Valmasoni M.
      • Capovilla G.
      • Pierobon E.S.
      • Moletta L.
      • Provenzano L.
      • Costantini M.
      • et al.
      A technical modification to the circular stapling anastomosis technique during minimally invasive Ivor Lewis procedure.
      • Vande Walle C.
      • Ceelen W.P.
      • Boterberg T.
      • Vande Putte D.
      • Van Nieuwenhove Y.
      • Varin O.
      • et al.
      Anastomotic complications after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation are related to radiation dose to the gastric fundus.
      • Wang J.
      • Wei N.
      • Jiang N.
      • Lu Y.
      • Zhang X.
      Comparison of Ivor-Lewis versus Sweet procedure for middle and lower thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a STROBE compliant study.
      • Wee J.O.
      • Bravo-Iñiguez C.E.
      • Jaklitsch M.T.
      Early experience of robot-assisted esophagectomy with circular end-to-end stapled anastomosis.
      • Wu W.
      • Zhu Q.
      • Chen L.
      • Liu J.
      Technical and early outcomes of Ivor Lewis minimally invasive oesophagectomy for gastric tube construction in the thoracic cavity.
      • Xie M.R.
      • Liu C.Q.
      • Guo M.F.
      • Mei X.Y.
      • Sun X.H.
      • Xu M.Q.
      Short-term outcomes of minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
      • Yin Q.
      • Wang W.
      • Liu H.
      • Yang G.
      • Zhou S.
      • Liu L.
      Clinical application and observation of modified Ivor-Lewis surgery in Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction.
      • Yoshimura S.
      • Mori K.
      • Yamagata Y.
      • Aikou S.
      • Yagi K.
      • Nishida M.
      • et al.
      Quality of life after robot-assisted transmediastinal radical surgery for esophageal cancer.
      • Yu Y.
      • Wang Z.
      • Liu X.Y.
      • Zhu X.F.
      • Chen Q.F.
      Therapeutic efficacy comparison of two surgical procedures to treat middle thoracic esophageal carcinoma.
      • Liu Y.
      • Li J.J.
      • Zu P.
      • Liu H.X.
      • Yu Z.W.
      • Ren Y.
      Two-step method for creating a gastric tube during laparoscopic-thoracoscopic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.
      • Zhang Y.
      • Xiang J.
      • Han Y.
      • Huang M.
      • Hang J.
      • Abbas A.E.
      • et al.
      Initial experience of robot-assisted Ivor–Lewis esophagectomy: 61 consecutive cases from a single Chinese institution.
      • Zhang Z.
      • Xu M.
      • Guo M.
      • Liu X.
      Long-term outcomes of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagostomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: compared with open approach.
      • Awad Z.T.
      • Abbas S.
      • Puri R.
      • Dalton B.
      • Chesire D.J.
      Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MILE): technique and outcomes of 100 consecutive cases.
      • Berlth F.
      • Mann C.
      • Uzun E.
      • Tagkalos E.
      • Hadzijusufovic E.
      • Hillegersberg R.
      • et al.
      Technical details of the abdominal part during full robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy.
      • Egberts J.H.
      • Stein H.
      • Aselmann H.
      • Hendricks A.
      • Becker T.
      Fully robotic da Vinci Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in four-arm technique-problems and solutions.
      • Gao H.J.
      • Mu J.W.
      • Pan W.M.
      • Brock M.
      • Wang M.L.
      • Han B.
      • et al.
      Totally mechanical linear stapled anastomosis for minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: operative technique and short-term outcomes.
      • Hernandez J.M.
      • Dimou F.
      • Weber J.
      • Almhanna K.
      • Hoffe S.
      • Shridhar R.
      • et al.
      Defining the learning curve for robotic-assisted esophagogastrectomy.
      • Jeon H.W.
      • Park J.K.
      • Song K.Y.
      • Sung S.W.
      High intrathoracic anastomosis with thoracoscopy is safe and feasible for treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
      • Merritt R.E.
      • Kneuertz P.J.
      • D'Souza D.M.
      • Abdel-Rasoul M.
      • Perry K.A.
      An analysis of outcomes after transition from open to minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      • Pötscher A.
      • Bittermann C.
      • Längle F.
      Robot-assisted esophageal surgery using the da Vinci® Xi system: operative technique and initial experiences.
      • Wang Z.
      • Zhang H.
      • Wang F.
      • Wang Y.
      Robot-assisted esophagogastric reconstruction in minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      • Zhang T.
      • Hou X.
      • Li Y.
      • Fu X.
      • Liu L.
      • Xu L.
      • et al.
      Effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis and McKeown oesophagectomy in Chinese patients with stage IA-IIIB oesophageal squamous cell cancer: a multicentre, non-interventional and observational study.
      ,
      • Akowuah E.
      • Junemann-Ramirez M.
      • Kalejayie O.
      • Rahamim J.
      Inkwelling increases benign stricture formation after Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy.

      Main Outcomes and Measures

      Main outcomes included anastomotic leak rate, overall morbidity, and mortality. Secondary end points included operative time, pneumonia, arrhythmia, and LOS.

      Statistical Analysis

      The occurrence rate (pooled proportion) and 95% CI were calculated for anastomotic leak rate, overall morbidity, and mortality. Using an a priori assumption of significant heterogeneity, a random effect model was used to estimate pooled proportions and 95% CI. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, and significance was assumed when the I2 was greater than 50%. Heterogeneity was also defined as a Cochran Q <0.10. The summary statistics were treated as independent observations and analyzed using standard methods for independent data. Mean age and mean operative time were compared for patients who underwent OE, HE, and TMIE using the Kruskal–Wallis test. Linear regression was used to model the effect of each approach on the different main outcomes and secondary end points. The parameter for the procedure from the linear model (ie, the log odds ratio in a comparison the 3 approaches) describes differences between groups (TMIE as reference group).
      For the main outcomes, publication bias was investigated using funnel plots and the rank correlation test. We used R version 4.1.2 (R Project for Statistical Computing) with meta and metafor packages for all analyses. Statistical tests were 2-sided.

      Results

      A total of 16,053 patients were included for analysis; 8081 (50.3%) underwent OE, 1524 (9.5%) HE, and 6448 (40.2%) TMIE. Mean operative time was shorter among patients who underwent OE (OE, 286.1 vs HE, 339.3 vs TMIE, 355.6 minutes; P = .0001). Patient characteristics are summarized in Tables E1, E2, and E3.
      The pooled proportion of anastomotic leak was 6% (95% CI, 5%-7%) after OE, 8% (95% CI, 6%-11%) after HE, and 8% (95% CI, 6%-9%) after TMIE. It was estimated that the risk of developing an anastomotic leak was significantly lower after OE (odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.81; P < .0001), compared with TMIE. A similar risk of anastomotic leak was found among patients who underwent TMIE and HE (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.72-1.13; P = .37; Figure 1).
      Figure thumbnail gr1a
      Figure 1Proportion forest plots of anastomotic leak in open, hybrid, and totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. CI, Confidence interval; PI, prediction interval.
      Figure thumbnail gr1b
      Figure 1Proportion forest plots of anastomotic leak in open, hybrid, and totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. CI, Confidence interval; PI, prediction interval.
      Figure thumbnail gr1c
      Figure 1Proportion forest plots of anastomotic leak in open, hybrid, and totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. CI, Confidence interval; PI, prediction interval.
      The overall morbidity rate was 45% (95% CI, 38%-52%) after OE, 40% (95% CI, 25%-59%) after HE, and 37% (95% CI, 32%-43%) after TMIE. The risk of overall morbidity was higher after OE (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.26-1.49; P < .0001) compared with TMIE. The risk of overall morbidity was similar between TMIE and HE (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.94-1.37; P = .19; Figure 2).
      Figure thumbnail gr2a
      Figure 2Proportion forest plots of overall morbidity in open, hybrid, and totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. CI, Confidence interval; PI, prediction interval.
      Figure thumbnail gr2b
      Figure 2Proportion forest plots of overall morbidity in open, hybrid, and totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. CI, Confidence interval; PI, prediction interval.
      The pneumonia rate was 14% (95% CI, 10%-20%), 13% (95% CI, 8%-19%), and 9% (95% CI, 8%-12%) after OE, HE, and TMIE, respectively. The risk of developing pneumonia was higher after OE (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1-1.29; P < .04), compared with TMIE. Rates of pneumonia were similar for patients who underwent TMIE and HE (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.65-1.11; P = .24).
      The arrhythmia rate was 8% (95% CI, 6%-12%) after OE, 14% (95% CI, 8%-24%) after HE, and 11% (95% CI, 8%-15%) after TMIE. The risk of developing arrhythmia was lower after OE (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.46-0.63; P < .0001), compared with TMIE. The arrhythmia rate was similar among patients who underwent TMIE and HE (OR, 1; 95% CI, 0.77-1.3; P = .97).
      The pooled mortality rate was 4% (95% CI, 3%-4%) after OE, 4% (95% CI, 3%-6%) after HE, and 2% (95% CI, 2%-3%) after TMIE. Risk estimation showed higher odds of mortality after OE (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.76%-2.81; P < .0001) and HE (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.32-2.81; P < .001) compared with TMIE (Figure 3).
      Figure thumbnail gr3a
      Figure 3Proportion forest plots of mortality in open, hybrid, and totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. CI, Confidence interval; PI, prediction interval.
      Figure thumbnail gr3b
      Figure 3Proportion forest plots of mortality in open, hybrid, and totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. CI, Confidence interval; PI, prediction interval.
      Figure thumbnail gr3c
      Figure 3Proportion forest plots of mortality in open, hybrid, and totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. CI, Confidence interval; PI, prediction interval.
      Median LOS was 14.1 (range, 8-28), 12.5 (range, 8-18), and 11.9 (range, 7-30) days after OE, HE, and TMIE, respectively. Hospital stay was significantly shorter among patients who underwent TMIE (P = .003). The main outcomes are summarized in Figure 4. Publication bias was detected for anastomotic leakage and mortality only in OE studies (Figure E2).
      Figure thumbnail gr4
      Figure 4Comparison of surgical outcomes of open, hybrid, and totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

      Discussion

      We aimed to compare postoperative outcomes for OE, HE, and TMIE. Although OE was associated with shorter operative time and reduced anastomotic leakage rates, our study showed that minimally invasive surgery is associated with significantly lower rates of overall morbidity and mortality, along with shorter LOS. In addition, TMIE was associated with lower mortality and shorter LOS than HE.
      Ivor Lewis esophagectomy is a complex procedure that is associated with high rates of perioperative complications.
      • Griffin S.M.
      • Shaw I.H.
      • Dresner S.M.
      Early complications after Ivor Lewis subtotal esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy: risk factors and management.
      • Lindner K.
      • Fritz M.
      • Haane C.
      • Senninger N.
      • Palmes D.
      • Hummel R.
      Postoperative complications do not affect long-term outcome in esophageal cancer patients.
      • Hulscher J.B.
      • van Sandick J.W.
      • de Boer A.G.
      • Wijnhoven B.P.
      • Tijssen J.G.
      • Fockens P.
      • et al.
      Extended transthoracic resection compared with limited transhiatal resection for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus.
      An open transthoracic esophagectomy has shown overall postoperative adverse events rates as high as 73%, with more than 30% of patients requiring reoperation or intensive care unit admission to treat complications.
      • Ahmadi N.
      • Crnic A.
      • Seely A.J.
      • Sundaresan S.R.
      • Villeneuve P.J.
      • Maziak D.E.
      • et al.
      Impact of surgical approach on perioperative and long-term outcomes following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
      Minimally invasive surgery has been adopted by esophageal surgeons to decrease such morbidity rates. Previous studies have shown reduced amounts of intraoperative blood loss, lower rates of pulmonary infection, faster resumption of bowel function, and shorter hospital stay with the use of minimally invasive surgery.
      • Straatman J.
      • van der Wielen N.
      • Cuesta M.A.
      • Daams F.
      • Roig Garcia J.
      • Bonavina L.
      • et al.
      Minimally invasive versus open esophageal resection: three-year follow-up of the previously reported randomized controlled trial: the TIME trial.
      • Luketich J.D.
      • Schauer P.R.
      • Christie N.A.
      • Weigel T.L.
      • Raja S.
      • Fernando H.C.
      • et al.
      Minimally invasive esophagectomy.
      • Biere S.S.
      • van Berge Henegouwen M.I.
      • Maas K.W.
      • Bonavina L.
      • Rosman C.
      • Garcia J.R.
      • et al.
      Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.
      • van der Sluis P.C.
      • van der Horst S.
      • May A.M.
      • Schippers C.
      • Brosens L.A.A.
      • Joore H.C.A.
      • et al.
      Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy versus open transthoracic esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a randomized controlled trial.
      • Espinoza-Mercado F.
      • Imai T.A.
      • Borgella J.D.
      • Sarkissian A.
      • Serna-Gallegos D.
      • Alban R.F.
      • et al.
      Does the approach matter? Comparing survival in robotic, minimally invasive and open esophagectomies.
      In line with these findings, our pooled analysis of a large cohort of patients exposed that patients undergoing OE have higher risks of overall morbidity and mortality, as compared to those undergoing TMIE. The incidence of postoperative pneumonia, specifically, was also notably higher after OE. In addition, we also found that open esophagectomies were associated with longer LOS.
      HE can be considered as an initial step toward performing TMIE.
      • Bjelovic M.
      • Babic T.
      • Spica B.
      • Gunjic D.
      • Veselinovic M.
      • Trajkovic G.
      Could hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy improve the treatment results of esophageal cancer?.
      Several studies have compared outcomes for OE and HE.
      • Nuytens F.
      • Dabakuyo-Yonli T.S.
      • Meunier B.
      • Gagnière J.
      • Collet D.
      • D'Journo X.B.
      • et al.
      Five-year survival outcomes of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy in esophageal cancer: results of the MIRO randomized clinical trial.
      ,
      • Bjelovic M.
      • Babic T.
      • Spica B.
      • Gunjic D.
      • Veselinovic M.
      • Trajkovic G.
      Could hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy improve the treatment results of esophageal cancer?.
      ,
      • Findlay L.
      • Yao C.
      • Bennett D.H.
      • Byrom R.
      • Davies N.
      Non-inferiority of minimally invasive oesophagectomy: an 8-year retrospective case series.
      ,
      • Mariette C.
      • Markar S.R.
      • Dabakuyo-Yonli T.S.
      • Meunier B.
      • Pezet D.
      • Collet D.
      • et al.
      Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
      ,
      • Yun J.S.
      • Na K.J.
      • Song S.Y.
      • Kim S.
      • Jeong I.S.
      • Oh S.G.
      Comparison of perioperative outcomes following hybrid minimally invasive versus open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
      ,
      • Messager M.
      • Pasquer A.
      • Duhamel A.
      • Caranhac G.
      • Piessen G.
      • Mariette C.
      • et al.
      Laparoscopic gastric mobilization reduces postoperative mortality after esophageal cancer surgery: a French nationwide study.
      For instance, a randomized trial showed that HE had considerably lower incidence of intraoperative and major postoperative complications (mainly pulmonary complications) than OE.
      • Mariette C.
      • Markar S.R.
      • Dabakuyo-Yonli T.S.
      • Meunier B.
      • Pezet D.
      • Collet D.
      • et al.
      Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
      Similarly, the MIRO clinical trial compared HE (laparoscopic gastric mobilization with open right thoracotomy) with OE, and also showed higher rates of pulmonary and major postoperative complications in patients who underwent OE.
      • Nuytens F.
      • Dabakuyo-Yonli T.S.
      • Meunier B.
      • Gagnière J.
      • Collet D.
      • D'Journo X.B.
      • et al.
      Five-year survival outcomes of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy in esophageal cancer: results of the MIRO randomized clinical trial.
      However, few studies have compared outcomes for HE and TMIE.
      • Bizekis C.
      • Kent M.S.
      • Luketich J.D.
      • Buenaventura P.O.
      • Landreneau R.J.
      • Schuchert M.J.
      • et al.
      Initial experience with minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      • Grimminger P.P.
      • Tagkalos E.
      • Hadzijusufovic E.
      • Corvinus F.
      • Babic B.
      • Lang H.
      Change from hybrid to fully minimally invasive and robotic esophagectomy is possible without compromises.
      • Veenstra M.M.K.
      • Smithers B.M.
      • Visser E.
      • Edholm D.
      • Brosda S.
      • Thomas J.M.
      • et al.
      Complications and survival after hybrid and fully minimally invasive oesophagectomy.
      Grimminger and colleagues
      • Grimminger P.P.
      • Tagkalos E.
      • Hadzijusufovic E.
      • Corvinus F.
      • Babic B.
      • Lang H.
      Change from hybrid to fully minimally invasive and robotic esophagectomy is possible without compromises.
      compared perioperative results for HE and TMIE, and reported similar LOS and mortality rates between groups. However, pneumonia and wound infections occurred more often in the hybrid group.
      • Grimminger P.P.
      • Tagkalos E.
      • Hadzijusufovic E.
      • Corvinus F.
      • Babic B.
      • Lang H.
      Change from hybrid to fully minimally invasive and robotic esophagectomy is possible without compromises.
      Another study showed that TMIE had a small benefit in terms of blood loss and LOS but similar rates of postoperative complications, compared with HE.
      • Veenstra M.M.K.
      • Smithers B.M.
      • Visser E.
      • Edholm D.
      • Brosda S.
      • Thomas J.M.
      • et al.
      Complications and survival after hybrid and fully minimally invasive oesophagectomy.
      Interestingly, many studies on surgical outcomes after esophagectomy have included HE in the minimally invasive surgery group (without discrimination between HE and TMIE).
      • Irino T.
      • Tsai J.A.
      • Ericson J.
      • Nilsson M.
      • Lundell L.
      • Rouvelas I.
      Thoracoscopic side-to-side esophagogastrostomy by use of linear stapler-a simplified technique facilitating a minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis operation.
      • Gottlieb-Vedi E.
      • Kauppila J.H.
      • Malietzis G.
      • Nilsson M.
      • Markar S.R.
      • Lagergren J.
      Long-term survival in esophageal cancer after minimally invasive compared to open esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
      • Schoppmann S.F.
      • Prager G.
      • Langer F.B.
      • Riegler F.M.
      • Kabon B.
      • Fleischmann E.
      • et al.
      Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: a single-center case controlled study.
      • Yibulayin W.
      • Abulizi S.
      • Lv H.
      • Sun W.
      Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis.
      A critical finding of our study was that patients undergoing HE had considerably higher rates of postoperative mortality and longer LOS than those undergoing TMIE. Therefore, additional efforts are needed to continue embracing a totally minimally invasive approach.
      Anastomotic leak is one of the most serious complications after esophagectomy, especially for patients with an intrathoracic anastomosis. Our analysis showed that OE had lower rates of anastomotic leak compared with TMIE and HE. Remarkably, other studies have also shown lower anastomotic leakage rates with the open approach.
      • Seesing M.F.J.
      • Gisbertz S.S.
      • Goense L.
      • van Hillegersberg R.
      • Kroon H.M.
      • Lagarde S.M.
      • et al.
      A propensity score matched analysis of open versus minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy in the Netherlands.
      ,
      • Sihag S.
      • Kosinski A.S.
      • Gaissert H.A.
      • Wright C.D.
      • Schipper P.H.
      Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a comparison of early surgical outcomes from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons national database.
      For example, Seesing and colleagues
      • Seesing M.F.J.
      • Gisbertz S.S.
      • Goense L.
      • van Hillegersberg R.
      • Kroon H.M.
      • Lagarde S.M.
      • et al.
      A propensity score matched analysis of open versus minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy in the Netherlands.
      performed a propensity score-matched analysis of patients who underwent OE (n = 433) and minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (n = 433), and reported higher leakage rates in the minimally invasive group (15.5% vs 21.2%; P = .028). We hypothesize that these findings are partially explained by the steep learning curve of TMIE.
      • Sihag S.
      • Kosinski A.S.
      • Gaissert H.A.
      • Wright C.D.
      • Schipper P.H.
      Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a comparison of early surgical outcomes from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons national database.
      • van Workum F.
      • Stenstra M.H.B.C.
      • Berkelmans G.H.K.
      • Slaman A.E.
      • van Berge Henegouwen M.I.
      • Gisbertz S.S.
      • et al.
      Learning curve and associated morbidity of minimally invasive esophagectomy: a retrospective multicenter study.
      • Claassen L.
      • van Workum F.
      • Rosman C.
      Learning curve and postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy.
      For instance, Fumagalli and colleagues
      • Fumagalli U.
      • Baiocchi G.L.
      • Celotti A.
      • Parise P.
      • Cossu A.
      • Bonavina L.
      • et al.
      Incidence and treatment of mediastinal leakage after esophagectomy: insights from the multicenter study on mediastinal leaks.
      reported that the mean incidence of anastomotic leakage during the learning curve of TMIE was 18.8%, but it was only 4.5% after the plateau had been reached. In addition, we found that operative time was shorter for OE, and this result could also be influenced by the learning curve of TMIE. In fact, a previous study reported no differences in the operative time between TMIE and OE when performed by experienced surgeons.
      • Nguyen N.T.
      • Follette D.M.
      • Wolfe B.M.
      • Schneider P.D.
      • Roberts P.
      • Goodnight Jr., J.E.
      Comparison of minimally invasive esophagectomy with transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy.
      This study has several limitations. Mainly, most studies included for analysis were retrospective, potentially affected by selection and reporting bias. Furthermore, notable publication bias was detected in OE studies. In addition, important heterogeneity in defining and measuring outcomes was identified among the included studies. Finally, surgical volume (which affects postoperative outcomes after an esophagectomy) was not evaluated. However, the main strength of our study is that we compared outcomes for the 3 different approaches only in patients with intrathoracic anastomosis. The main findings of our study are described in Figure 5 and in a video form related by the first author of the paper (Video 1).
      Figure thumbnail gr5
      Figure 5Main findings of the study. OE, Open esophagectomy; HE, hybrid esophagectomy; TMIE, totally minimally invasive esophagectomy.

      Conclusions

      Although OE was associated with shorter operative time and reduced anastomotic leakage rates, our study showed that HE and TMIE are associated with lower rates of overall morbidity, reduced postoperative mortality, and shorter LOS. In addition, TMIE was associated with lower mortality rates and shorter LOS than HE. Further efforts are needed to widely embrace TMIE in a safe manner.

      Conflict of Interest Statement

      The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
      The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest.

      Supplementary Data

      Appendix E1

      Table E1Characteristics of studies with patients undergoing open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy
      First author referenceDesignPatient NMedian age, yearsMale sex, %Neoadjuvant therapy, %Mean operative time, minutesAnastomotic leak, %Overall morbidity, %Mortality, %Median LOS, days
      Karl
      • Karl R.C.
      • Schreiber R.
      • Boulware D.
      • Baker S.
      • Coppola D.
      Factors affecting morbidity, mortality, and survival in patients undergoing Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy.
      Retrospective14363.788.819.63273.5292.113.5
      Griffin
      • Griffin S.M.
      • Shaw I.H.
      • Dresner S.M.
      Early complications after Ivor Lewis subtotal esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy: risk factors and management.
      Retrospective22864NA2.62571.852.22.213
      Stilidi
      • Stilidi I.
      • Davydov M.
      • Bokhyan V.
      • Suleymanov E.
      Subtotal esophagectomy with extended 2-field lymph node dissection for thoracic esophageal cancer.
      Retrospective1475776.90NA060.66.1NA
      Malaisrie
      • Malaisrie S.C.
      • Untch B.
      • Aranha G.V.
      • Mohideen N.
      • Hantel A.
      • Pickleman J.
      Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer: experience at a single institution.
      Retrospective1236283.725.2NA4.156.12.414
      D'Journo
      • D'Journo X.B.
      • Doddoli C.
      • Michelet P.
      • Loundou A.
      • Trousse D.
      • Giudicelli R.
      • et al.
      Transthoracic esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus: standard versus extended two-field mediastinal lymphadenectomy?.
      Retrospective1026288.252.9NA1NA9.828
      Jensen
      • Jensen L.S.
      • Pilegaard H.K.
      • Puho E.
      • Pahle E.
      • Melsen N.C.
      Outcome after transthoracic resection of carcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophago-gastric junction.
      Retrospective1666271.78.41701.2NA611
      Junemann-Ramirez
      • Junemann-Ramirez M.
      • Awan M.Y.
      • Khan Z.M.
      • Rahamim J.S.
      Anastomotic leakage post-esophagogastrectomy for esophageal carcinoma: retrospective analysis of predictive factors, management and influence on longterm survival in a high volume centre.
      Retrospective27666.168.16.2NA5.1NA5.8NA
      Homesh
      • Homesh N.A.
      • Alsabahi A.A.
      • Al-Agmar M.H.
      • Alwashaly A.A.
      • Valenzuela R.E.
      • Alhadid M.A.
      • et al.
      Transhiatal versus transthoracic resection for oesophageal carcinoma in Yemen.
      Prospective415946.3NANA12NA7.321.7
      Robertson
      • Robertson S.A.
      • Skipworth R.J.
      • Clarke D.L.
      • Crofts T.J.
      • Lee A.
      • de Beaux A.C.
      • et al.
      Ventilatory and intensive care requirements following oesophageal resection.
      Retrospective71NANANANA14.132.48.5NA
      Schröder
      • Schröder W.
      • Bollschweiler E.
      • Kossow C.
      • Hölscher A.H.
      Preoperative risk analysis--a reliable predictor of postoperative outcome after transthoracic esophagectomy?.
      Retrospective12658.284.136.5NA11.1545.6NA
      Blackmon
      • Blackmon S.H.
      • Correa A.M.
      • Wynn B.
      • Hofstetter W.L.
      • Martin L.W.
      • Mehran R.J.
      • et al.
      Propensity-matched analysis of three techniques for intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomosis.
      Retrospective2145891.177NA7NANA12
      Akowuah
      • Akowuah E.
      • Junemann-Ramirez M.
      • Kalejayie O.
      • Rahamim J.
      Inkwelling increases benign stricture formation after Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy.
      Retrospective49566NANANA6.7NA7.5NA
      Chen
      • Chen G.
      • Wang Z.
      • Liu X.Y.
      • Liu F.Y.
      Recurrence pattern of squamous cell carcinoma in the middle thoracic esophagus after modified Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.
      Retrospective1965467.30NA6.633.72.5NA
      Kono
      • Kono K.
      • Sugai H.
      • Omata H.
      • Fujii H.
      Transient bloodletting of the short gastric vein in the reconstructed gastric tube improves gastric microcirculation during esophagectomy.
      Retrospective767092.105001.3NA1.3NA
      Cerfolio
      • Cerfolio R.J.
      • Bryant A.S.
      • Canon C.L.
      • Dhawan R.
      • Eloubeidi M.A.
      Is botulinum toxin injection of the pylorus during Ivor Lewis [corrected] esophagogastrectomy the optimal drainage strategy?.
      Retrospective2216462.9522340.549.84.58
      Luechakiettisak
      • Luechakiettisak P.
      • Kasetsunthorn S.
      Comparison of hand-sewn and stapled in esophagogastric anastomosis after esophageal cancer resection: a prospective randomized study.
      Prospective1176383.7NA2105.12NA11.1NA
      Raz
      • Raz D.J.
      • Tedesco P.
      • Herbella F.A.
      • Nipomnick I.
      • Way L.W.
      • Patti M.G.
      Side-to-side stapled intra-thoracic esophagogastric anastomosis reduces the incidence of leaks and stenosis.
      Retrospective336269.715.2NA0NA3NA
      Safranek
      • Safranek P.M.
      • Sujendran V.
      • Baron R.
      • Warner N.
      • Blesing C.
      • Maynard N.D.
      Oxford experience with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgical resection for esophageal adenocarcinomas and squamous cell tumors.
      Retrospective40NANANANA2.5NA0NA
      Wu
      • Wu J.
      • Chai Y.
      • Zhou X.M.
      • Chen Q.X.
      • Yan F.L.
      Ivor Lewis subtotal esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy for squamous cell carcinoma of the lower thoracic esophagus.
      Retrospective73578902432.715.42.7NA
      Ott
      • Ott K.
      • Bader F.G.
      • Lordick F.
      • Feith M.
      • Bartels H.
      • Siewert J.R.
      Surgical factors influence the outcome after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: a consecutive series of 240 patients at an experienced center.
      Retrospective2405994.665.4NA7.5NA2.1NA
      Hamouda
      • Hamouda A.H.
      • Forshaw M.J.
      • Tsigritis K.
      • Jones G.E.
      • Noorani A.S.
      • Rohatgi A.
      • et al.
      Perioperative outcomes after transition from conventional to minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in a specialized center.
      Retrospective246089.383.32608.3NA014
      Pham
      • Pham T.H.
      • Perry K.A.
      • Dolan J.P.
      • Schipper P.
      • Sukumar M.
      • Sheppard B.C.
      • et al.
      Comparison of perioperative outcomes after combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy and open Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.
      Retrospective466171.75043710.958.74.314
      Munitiz
      • Munitiz V.
      • Martinez-de-Haro L.F.
      • Ortiz A.
      • Ruiz-de-Angulo D.
      • Pastor P.
      • Parrilla P.
      Effectiveness of a written clinical pathway for enhanced recovery after transthoracic (Ivor Lewis) oesophagectomy.
      Retrospective1486087.27.4NA7.434.53.411
      Yu
      • Yu Y.
      • Wang Z.
      • Liu X.Y.
      • Zhu X.F.
      • Chen Q.F.
      Therapeutic efficacy comparison of two surgical procedures to treat middle thoracic esophageal carcinoma.
      Retrospective102NA72.5NANA019.60NA
      Asteriou
      • Asteriou C.
      • Barbetakis N.
      • Lalountas M.
      • Kleontas A.
      • Tsilikas C.
      Modified pleural tenting for prevention of anastomotic leak after Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy.
      Retrospective1146159.603457.9NA4.411
      Kawoosa
      • Kawoosa N.U.
      • Dar A.M.
      • Sharma M.L.
      • Ahangar A.G.
      • Lone G.N.
      • Bhat M.A.
      • et al.
      Transthoracic versus transhiatal esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma: experience from a single tertiary care institution.
      Retrospective1775767.2NA2342.850.83.411.2
      Vande Walle
      • Vande Walle C.
      • Ceelen W.P.
      • Boterberg T.
      • Vande Putte D.
      • Van Nieuwenhove Y.
      • Varin O.
      • et al.
      Anastomotic complications after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation are related to radiation dose to the gastric fundus.
      Retrospective545985.21003849.3NA5.617.5
      Klink
      • Klink C.D.
      • Binnebösel M.
      • Otto J.
      • Boehm G.
      • von Trotha K.T.
      • Hilgers R.D.
      • et al.
      Intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis after resection of esophageal cancer: a matched pair analysis of 72 patients in a single center study.
      Retrospective366294.472.226111.1NA2.814
      Lee
      • Lee J.J.
      • Kim G.H.
      • Kim J.A.
      • Yang M.
      • Ahn H.J.
      • Sim W.S.
      • et al.
      Comparison of pulmonary morbidity using sevoflurane or propofol-remifentanil anesthesia in an Ivor Lewis operation.
      Retrospective486210012.62706.2535.4015
      Noble
      • Noble F.
      • Kelly J.J.
      • Bailey I.S.
      • Byrne J.P.
      • Underwood T.J.
      South Coast Cancer Collaboration–Oesophago-Gastric (SC3-OG). A prospective comparison of totally minimally invasive versus open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      Retrospective536484.967.92403.860.41.912
      Sayir
      • Sayir F.
      • Cobanoğlu U.
      • Sehitoğulları A.
      The use of LigaSure vessel sealing system in Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      Retrospective6052.743.3NA286548.3514
      Sihag
      • Sihag S.
      • Wright C.D.
      • Wain J.C.
      • Gaissert H.A.
      • Lanuti M.
      • Allan J.S.
      • et al.
      Comparison of perioperative outcomes following open versus minimally invasive Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy at a single, high-volume centre.
      Retrospective7663.380.360.53652.6712.69
      Suttie
      • Suttie S.A.
      • Nanthakumaran S.
      • Mofidi R.
      • Rapson T.
      • Gilbert F.J.
      • Thompson A.M.
      • et al.
      The impact of operative approach for oesophageal cancer on outcome: the transhiatal approach may influence circumferential margin involvement.
      Retrospective1406466.49.3NA7.1NA1021
      Beasley
      • Beasley W.D.
      • Jefferies M.T.
      • Gilmour J.
      • Manson J.M.
      A single surgeon's series of transthoracic oesophageal resections.
      Retrospective1656678.841.2NA1.2NA315
      Fares
      • Fares K.M.
      • Mohamed S.A.
      • Hamza H.M.
      • Sayed D.M.
      • Hetta D.F.
      Effect of thoracic epidural analgesia on pro-inflammatory cytokines in patients subjected to protective lung ventilation during Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      Retrospective305676.6NA26916.6NA16.6NA
      Kauppi
      • Kauppi J.
      • Räsänen J.
      • Sihvo E.
      • Huuhtanen R.
      • Nelskylä K.
      • Salo J.
      Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: clinical outcomes for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma.
      Retrospective7963861003676.360.81.313
      Lindner
      • Lindner K.
      • Fritz M.
      • Haane C.
      • Senninger N.
      • Palmes D.
      • Hummel R.
      Postoperative complications do not affect long-term outcome in esophageal cancer patients.
      Retrospective1346382.858.227514.2536.721
      Ma
      • Ma J.
      • Zhan C.
      • Wang L.
      • Jiang W.
      • Zhang Y.
      • Shi Y.
      • et al.
      The sweet approach is still worthwhile in modern esophagectomy.
      Retrospective167NA84.4NA2084.220.41.8NA
      Mu
      • Mu J.
      • Yuan Z.
      • Zhang B.
      • Li N.
      • Lyu F.
      • Mao Y.
      • et al.
      Comparative study of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in a single cancer center.
      Retrospective905974.4NA27008.91.119
      Xie
      • Xie M.R.
      • Liu C.Q.
      • Guo M.F.
      • Mei X.Y.
      • Sun X.H.
      • Xu M.Q.
      Short-term outcomes of minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
      Retrospective16363.874.202563.734.42.513.9
      Zhao
      • Zhao Y.
      • Jiao W.
      • Zhao J.
      • Wang X.
      • Luo Y.
      • Wang Y.
      Anastomosis in minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy via two ports provides equivalent perioperative outcomes to open.
      Retrospective3057.893.30NA3.3NA013
      Harustiak
      • Harustiak T.
      • Pazdro A.
      • Snajdauf M.
      • Stolz A.
      • Lischke R.
      Anastomotic leak and stricture after hand-sewn versus linear-stapled intrathoracic oesophagogastric anastomosis: single-centre analysis of 415 oesophagectomies.
      Retrospective4156186.756NA13.554.73.912
      Li
      • Li B.
      • Xiang J.
      • Zhang Y.
      • Li H.
      • Zhang J.
      • Sun Y.
      • et al.
      Comparison of Ivor-Lewis vs Sweet esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
      Prospective1506078.7NA2021.3300.716
      Peng
      • Peng J.
      • Wang W.P.
      • Yuan Y.
      • Hu Y.
      • Wang Y.
      • Chen L.Q.
      Optimal extent of lymph node dissection for Siewert type II esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma.
      Retrospective3161.280.6NANA3.2NANA12.4
      Ambrus
      • Ambrus R.
      • Svendsen L.B.
      • Secher N.H.
      • Rünitz K.
      • Frederiksen H.J.
      • Svendsen M.B.
      • et al.
      A reduced gastric corpus microvascular blood flow during Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy detected by laser speckle contrast imaging technique.
      Retrospective2567.576NA2378NA4NA
      Bjelovic
      • Bjelovic M.
      • Babic T.
      • Spica B.
      • Gunjic D.
      • Veselinovic M.
      • Trajkovic G.
      Could hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy improve the treatment results of esophageal cancer?.
      Prospective445981.8NA341047.7216.6
      Deldycke
      • Deldycke A.
      • Van Daele E.
      • Ceelen W.
      • Van Nieuwenhove Y.
      • Pattyn P.
      Functional outcome after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for cancer.
      Retrospective32261.780.442.5NA5.6NANANA
      Hummel
      • Hummel R.
      • Mees S.T.
      • Smith L.
      • Jamieson G.G.
      • Kiroff G.
      • Shenfine J.
      Quality and outcomes of synchronous two-team Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy: revisiting a variant technique.
      Retrospective2016381.61002051155314
      Mei
      • Mei X.
      • Xu M.
      • Guo M.
      • Xie M.
      • Liu C.
      • Wang Z.
      Minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy is a feasible and safe approach for patients with oesophageal cancer.
      Retrospective24862.476.602613.235212.8
      Tapias
      • Tapias L.F.
      • Mathisen D.J.
      • Wright C.D.
      • Wain J.C.
      • Gaissert H.A.
      • Muniappan A.
      • et al.
      Outcomes with open and minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy after neoadjuvant therapy.
      Retrospective7562.689.31003611.3NA2.79
      Ahmadi
      • Ahmadi N.
      • Crnic A.
      • Seely A.J.
      • Sundaresan S.R.
      • Villeneuve P.J.
      • Maziak D.E.
      • et al.
      Impact of surgical approach on perioperative and long-term outcomes following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
      Retrospective137NA89595091673214
      Blank
      • Blank S.
      • Schmidt T.
      • Heger P.
      • Strowitzki M.J.
      • Sisic L.
      • Heger U.
      • et al.
      Surgical strategies in true adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG II): thoracoabdominal or abdominal approach?.
      Retrospective56NA85.755.4NA14.357.15.419
      Duan
      • Duan X.F.
      • Yue J.
      • Tang P.
      • Shang X.B.
      • Jiang H.J.
      • Yu Z.T.
      Lymph node dissection for Siewert II esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma: a retrospective study of 3 surgical procedures.
      Retrospective4763.691.50223012.8015.4
      Findlay
      • Findlay L.
      • Yao C.
      • Bennett D.H.
      • Byrom R.
      • Davies N.
      Non-inferiority of minimally invasive oesophagectomy: an 8-year retrospective case series.
      Retrospective1876579.386.2NA5.8NA111
      Miller
      • Miller D.L.
      • Helms G.A.
      • Mayfield W.R.
      Evaluation of esophageal anastomotic integrity with serial pleural amylase levels.
      Retrospective456388.960NA6.733.30NA
      Zhang
      • Zhang Z.
      • Xu M.
      • Guo M.
      • Liu X.
      Long-term outcomes of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagostomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: compared with open approach.
      Retrospective9563.976.802715.250.51.112
      Fritz
      • Fritz S.
      • Feilhauer K.
      • Schaudt A.
      • Killguss H.
      • Esianu E.
      • Hennig R.
      • et al.
      Pylorus drainage procedures in thoracoabdominal esophagectomy - a single-center experience and review of the literature.
      Retrospective1706480.665.325624.1NA2.920
      Kesler
      • Kesler K.A.
      • Ramchandani N.K.
      • Jalal S.I.
      • Stokes S.M.
      • Mankins M.R.
      • Ceppa D.
      • et al.
      Outcomes of a novel intrathoracic esophagogastric anastomotic technique.
      Retrospective278608271.9NA2.941.41.113
      Wu
      • Wu Z.
      • Wu M.
      • Wang Q.
      • Zhan T.
      • Wang L.
      • Pan S.
      • et al.
      Home enteral nutrition after minimally invasive esophagectomy can improve quality of life and reduce the risk of malnutrition.
      Prospective756189NANA2.7NA1.516
      Mariette
      • Mariette C.
      • Markar S.R.
      • Dabakuyo-Yonli T.S.
      • Meunier B.
      • Pezet D.
      • Collet D.
      • et al.
      Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
      Prospective1046283.572.13006.796214
      Wang
      • Wang J.
      • Wei N.
      • Jiang N.
      • Lu Y.
      • Zhang X.
      Comparison of Ivor-Lewis versus Sweet procedure for middle and lower thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a STROBE compliant study.
      Retrospective325628.201655.540.30.612
      Wang
      • Wang L.
      • Milman S.
      • Ng T.
      Performance of the transoral circular stapler for oesophagogastrectomy after induction therapy.
      Retrospective876379.31003002.3NA010
      LOS, Length of stay; NA, not available.
      Table E2Characteristics of studies with patients who underwent hybrid Ivor Lewis esophagectomy
      First author referenceDesignPatient NMedian age, yearsMale sex, %Neoadjuvant therapy, %Mean operative time, minutesAnastomotic leak, %Overall morbidity, %Mortality, %Median LOS, days
      Bizekis
      • Bizekis C.
      • Kent M.S.
      • Luketich J.D.
      • Buenaventura P.O.
      • Landreneau R.J.
      • Schuchert M.J.
      • et al.
      Initial experience with minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      Retrospective3562NANANA8.6NA5.79
      Godiris-Petit
      • Godiris-Petit G.
      • Munoz-Bongrand N.
      • Honigman I.
      • Cattan P.
      • Sarfati E.
      Minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer: prospective evaluation of laparoscopic gastric mobilization.
      Prospective25606820260860818
      Hölscher
      • Hölscher A.H.
      • Schneider P.M.
      • Gutschow C.
      • Schröder W.
      Laparoscopic ischemic conditioning of the stomach for esophageal replacement.
      Retrospective8361.981.950.6NA613.3NANA
      Hamouda
      • Hamouda A.H.
      • Forshaw M.J.
      • Tsigritis K.
      • Jones G.E.
      • Noorani A.S.
      • Rohatgi A.
      • et al.
      Perioperative outcomes after transition from conventional to minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in a specialized center.
      Retrospective2564768024912NA015
      Schröder
      • Schröder W.
      • Hölscher A.H.
      • Bludau M.
      • Vallböhmer D.
      • Bollschweiler E.
      • Gutschow C.
      Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy with and without laparoscopic conditioning of the gastric conduit.
      Retrospective41959.783.350.1NA8.4NA4.3NA
      Bludau
      • Bludau M.
      • Hölscher A.H.
      • Vallböhmer D.
      • Metzger R.
      • Bollschweiler E.
      • Schröder W.
      Vascular endothelial growth factor expression following ischemic conditioning of the gastric conduit.
      Prospective2060.98070NA5150NA
      Kim
      • Kim K.
      • Park J.S.
      • Seo H.
      Early outcomes of video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) Ivor Lewis operation for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: the extracorporeal anastomosis technique.
      Retrospective316490.30NA025.8015.2
      McCahill
      • McCahill L.E.
      • May M.
      • Morrow J.B.
      • Khandavalli S.
      • Shabahang B.
      • Kemmeter P.
      • et al.
      Esophagectomy outcomes at a mid-volume cancer center utilizing prospective multidisciplinary care and a 2-surgeon team approach.
      Prospective11NANANA468081.8913
      Bonavina
      • Bonavina L.
      • Scolari F.
      • Aiolfi A.
      • Bonitta G.
      • Sironi A.
      • Saino G.
      • et al.
      Early outcome of thoracoscopic and hybrid esophagectomy: propensity-matched comparative analysis.
      Retrospective8063.588.821.330012.5NA2.513
      Bjelovic
      • Bjelovic M.
      • Babic T.
      • Spica B.
      • Gunjic D.
      • Veselinovic M.
      • Trajkovic G.
      Could hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy improve the treatment results of esophageal cancer?.
      Prospective4461.484NA3192.329.52.216.1
      Wee
      • Wee J.O.
      • Bravo-Iñiguez C.E.
      • Jaklitsch M.T.
      Early experience of robot-assisted esophagectomy with circular end-to-end stapled anastomosis.
      Retrospective20647085455NA5508
      Woodard
      • Woodard G.A.
      • Crockard J.C.
      • Clary-Macy C.
      • Zoon-Besselink C.T.
      • Jones K.
      • Korn W.M.
      • et al.
      Hybrid minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation yields excellent long-term survival outcomes with minimal morbidity.
      Retrospective1316666.4NANA2.3NA0.810
      Findlay
      • Findlay L.
      • Yao C.
      • Bennett D.H.
      • Byrom R.
      • Davies N.
      Non-inferiority of minimally invasive oesophagectomy: an 8-year retrospective case series.
      Retrospective956788.482.1NA11.6NA4.212
      Yoshimura
      • Yoshimura S.
      • Mori K.
      • Yamagata Y.
      • Aikou S.
      • Yagi K.
      • Nishida M.
      • et al.
      Quality of life after robot-assisted transmediastinal radical surgery for esophageal cancer.
      Retrospective376981.12.7NA10.8NANANA
      Asti
      • Asti E.
      • Bernardi D.
      • Bonitta G.
      • Bonavina L.
      Outcomes of transhiatal and intercostal pleural drain after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: comparative analysis of two consecutive patient cohorts.
      Retrospective100638242335329010
      Brinkmann
      • Brinkmann S.
      • Chang D.H.
      • Kuhr K.
      • Hoelscher A.H.
      • Spiro J.
      • Bruns C.J.
      • et al.
      Stenosis of the celiac trunk is associated with anastomotic leak after Ivor–Lewis esophagectomy.
      Retrospective154627680.5NA9.7632.616
      Grimminger
      • Grimminger P.P.
      • Tagkalos E.
      • Hadzijusufovic E.
      • Corvinus F.
      • Babic B.
      • Lang H.
      Change from hybrid to fully minimally invasive and robotic esophagectomy is possible without compromises.
      Retrospective2560.384883604NA015.8
      Hawasli
      • Hawasli A.
      • Camero L.
      • Williams T.
      • Ambrosi G.
      • Sahly M.
      • Demos D.
      • et al.
      The original Ivor Lewis two stage esophagectomy revisited in the era of minimally invasive surgery.
      Retrospective296289.7NANA3.437.96.912
      Mariette
      • Mariette C.
      • Markar S.R.
      • Dabakuyo-Yonli T.S.
      • Meunier B.
      • Pezet D.
      • Collet D.
      • et al.
      Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
      Prospective1035985.474.832710.778114
      Sdralis
      • Sdralis E.
      • Tzaferai A.
      • Davakis S.
      • Syllaios A.
      • Kordzadeh A.
      • Lorenzi B.
      • et al.
      Reinforcement of intrathoracic oesophago-gastric anastomosis with fibrin sealant (Tisseel®) in oesophagectomy for cancer: a prospective comparative study.
      Prospective57NA71.964.932014NA8.812
      LOS, Length of stay; NA, not available.
      Table E3Characteristics of studies with patients who underwent totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy
      First author referenceDesignPatient NMedian age, yearsMale sex, %Neoadjuvant therapy, %Mean operative time, minutesAnastomotic leak, %Overall morbidity, %Mortality, %Median LOS, days
      Bizekis
      • Bizekis C.
      • Kent M.S.
      • Luketich J.D.
      • Buenaventura P.O.
      • Landreneau R.J.
      • Schuchert M.J.
      • et al.
      Initial experience with minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      Retrospective1562NANANA0NA6.67
      Nguyen
      • Nguyen N.T.
      • Hinojosa M.W.
      • Smith B.R.
      • Chang K.J.
      • Gray J.
      • Hoyt D.
      Minimally invasive esophagectomy: lessons learned from 104 operations.
      Prospective516464.7NA2497.8NA1.99.7
      Campos
      • Campos G.M.
      • Jablons D.
      • Brown L.M.
      • Ramirez R.M.
      • Rabl C.
      • Theodore P.
      A safe and reproducible anastomotic technique for minimally invasive Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy: the circular-stapled anastomosis with the trans-oral anvil.
      Retrospective376586.554.12752.743.2NA10
      Hamouda
      • Hamouda A.H.
      • Forshaw M.J.
      • Tsigritis K.
      • Jones G.E.
      • Noorani A.S.
      • Rohatgi A.
      • et al.
      Perioperative outcomes after transition from conventional to minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in a specialized center.
      Retrospective266296.192.32233.8NA016
      Jaroszewski
      • Jaroszewski D.E.
      • Williams D.G.
      • Fleischer D.E.
      • Ross H.J.
      • Romero Y.
      • Harold K.L.
      An early experience using the technique of transoral OrVil EEA stapler for minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy.
      Retrospective516584.362.73389.8495.911
      Li
      • Li H.
      • Hu B.
      • You B.
      • Miao J.B.
      • Fu Y.L.
      • Chen Q.R.
      Combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: initial experience from China.
      Retrospective65583.3026000017
      Noble
      • Noble F.
      • Kelly J.J.
      • Bailey I.S.
      • Byrne J.P.
      • Underwood T.J.
      South Coast Cancer Collaboration–Oesophago-Gastric (SC3-OG). A prospective comparison of totally minimally invasive versus open Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      Retrospective536681.175.53009.473.61.912
      Luketich
      • Luketich J.D.
      • Pennathur A.
      • Awais O.
      • Levy R.M.
      • Keeley S.
      • Shende M.
      • et al.
      Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients.
      Retrospective5306478.328.5NA4.3NA0.97
      Sihag
      • Sihag S.
      • Wright C.D.
      • Wain J.C.
      • Gaissert H.A.
      • Lanuti M.
      • Allan J.S.
      • et al.
      Comparison of perioperative outcomes following open versus minimally invasive Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy at a single, high-volume centre.
      Retrospective3861.476.365.8360036.807
      Thomay
      • Thomay A.A.
      • Snyder J.A.
      • Edmondson D.M.
      • Scott W.J.
      Initial results of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy after induction chemoradiation (50.4 Gy) for esophageal cancer.
      Retrospective306186.71005351086.7010
      de la Fuente
      • de la Fuente S.G.
      • Weber J.
      • Hoffe S.E.
      • Shridhar R.
      • Karl R.
      • Meredith K.L.
      Initial experience from a large referral center with robotic-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagogastrectomy for oncologic purposes.
      Retrospective5066787044522809
      Hernandez
      • Hernandez J.M.
      • Dimou F.
      • Weber J.
      • Almhanna K.
      • Hoffe S.
      • Shridhar R.
      • et al.
      Defining the learning curve for robotic-assisted esophagogastrectomy.
      Prospective526578.867.34421.926.90NA
      Guo
      • Guo W.
      • Ma L.
      • Zhang Y.
      • Ma X.
      • Yang S.
      • Zhu X.
      • et al.
      Totally minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy with single-utility incision video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for treatment of mid-lower esophageal cancer.
      Retrospective4160.578NA2684.91209
      Kauppi
      • Kauppi J.
      • Räsänen J.
      • Sihvo E.
      • Huuhtanen R.
      • Nelskylä K.
      • Salo J.
      Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: clinical outcomes for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma.
      Retrospective746679.282.43596.76502.713
      Mu
      • Mu J.
      • Yuan Z.
      • Zhang B.
      • Li N.
      • Lyu F.
      • Mao Y.
      • et al.
      Comparative study of minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in a single cancer center.
      Retrospective525959.6NA4207.721.21.917
      Tapias
      • Tapias L.F.
      • Morse C.R.
      Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: description of a learning curve.
      Retrospective8061.583.868.8364037.507
      Trugeda
      • Trugeda S.
      • Fernández-Díaz M.J.
      • Rodríguez-Sanjuán J.C.
      • Palazuelos C.M.
      • Fernández-Escalante C.
      • Gómez-Fleitas M.
      Initial results of robot-assisted Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy with intrathoracic hand-sewn anastomosis in the prone position.
      Retrospective145610064.322228.642.9013
      Wu
      • Wu W.
      • Zhu Q.
      • Chen L.
      • Liu J.
      Technical and early outcomes of Ivor Lewis minimally invasive oesophagectomy for gastric tube construction in the thoracic cavity.
      Retrospective2561640320432013.2
      Xie
      • Xie M.R.
      • Liu C.Q.
      • Guo M.F.
      • Mei X.Y.
      • Sun X.H.
      • Xu M.Q.
      Short-term outcomes of minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
      Retrospective10663.270.802524.726.41.911.8
      Zhao
      • Zhao Y.
      • Jiao W.
      • Zhao J.
      • Wang X.
      • Luo Y.
      • Wang Y.
      Anastomosis in minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy via two ports provides equivalent perioperative outcomes to open.
      Retrospective3357.887.90NA0NA013
      Bongiolatti
      • Bongiolatti S.
      • Annecchiarico M.
      • Di Marino M.
      • Boffi B.
      • Borgianni S.
      • Gonfiotti A.
      • et al.
      Robot-sewn Ivor-Lewis anastomosis: preliminary experience and technical details.
      Retrospective864NANA4992525010
      Campbell
      • Campbell C.
      • Reames M.K.
      • Robinson M.
      • Symanowski J.
      • Salo J.C.
      Conduit vascular evaluation is associated with reduction in anastomotic leak after esophagectomy.
      Retrospective906282.266.753413.3NA012
      Mungo
      • Mungo B.
      • Lidor A.O.
      • Stem M.
      • Molena D.
      Early experience and lessons learned in a new minimally invasive esophagectomy program.
      Retrospective526676.965.4NA13.5NA3.89
      Cerfolio
      • Cerfolio R.J.
      • Wei B.
      • Hawn M.T.
      • Minnich D.J.
      Robotic esophagectomy for cancer: early results and lessons learned.
      Retrospective856387753601.336.43.58
      Goense
      • Goense L.
      • van Rossum P.S.N.
      • Weijs T.J.
      • van Det M.J.
      • Nieuwenhuijzen G.A.
      • Luyer M.D.
      • et al.
      Aortic calcification increases the risk of anastomotic leakage after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.
      Retrospective1676583.291.6NA24NANANA
      Jeon
      • Jeon H.W.
      • Park J.K.
      • Song K.Y.
      • Sung S.W.
      High intrathoracic anastomosis with thoracoscopy is safe and feasible for treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
      Retrospective5864.393.1NA371.85.239.71.713.6
      Mei
      • Mei X.
      • Xu M.
      • Guo M.
      • Xie M.
      • Liu C.
      • Wang Z.
      Minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy is a feasible and safe approach for patients with oesophageal cancer.
      Retrospective13162.976.302523322.311
      Salem
      • Salem A.I.
      • Thau M.R.
      • Strom T.J.
      • Abbott A.M.
      • Saeed N.
      • Almhanna K.
      • et al.
      Effect of body mass index on operative outcome after robotic-assisted Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy: retrospective analysis of 129 cases at a single high-volume tertiary care center.
      Retrospective1296779.8764203.822.41.511.5
      Straatman
      • Straatman J.
      • van der Wielen N.
      • Cuesta M.A.
      • Daams F.
      • Roig Garcia J.
      • Bonavina L.
      • et al.
      Minimally invasive versus open esophageal resection: three-year follow-up of the previously reported randomized controlled trial: the TIME trial.
      Retrospective28262.877.390.233315.243.62.112
      Strosberg
      • Strosberg D.S.
      • Merritt R.E.
      • Perry K.A.
      Preventing anastomotic complications: early results of laparoscopic gastric devascularization two weeks prior to minimally invasive esophagectomy.
      Retrospective3064.570703443.323.33.38
      Ahmadi
      • Ahmadi N.
      • Crnic A.
      • Seely A.J.
      • Sundaresan S.R.
      • Villeneuve P.J.
      • Maziak D.E.
      • et al.
      Impact of surgical approach on perioperative and long-term outcomes following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.
      Retrospective73NA86.31005171474410
      Brown
      • Brown A.M.
      • Pucci M.J.
      • Berger A.C.
      • Tatarian T.
      • Evans N.R.
      • Rosato E.L.
      • et al.
      A standardized comparison of peri-operative complications after minimally invasive esophagectomy: Ivor Lewis versus McKeown.
      Retrospective4960.981.679.66212NA6.19
      Berkelmans
      • Berkelmans G.H.K.
      • Fransen L.
      • Weijs T.J.
      • Lubbers M.
      • Nieuwenhuijzen G.A.P.
      • Ruurda J.P.
      • et al.
      The long-term effects of early oral feeding following minimal invasive esophagectomy.
      Retrospective114668690NA2172.80.915
      Egberts
      • Berlth F.
      • Mann C.
      • Uzun E.
      • Tagkalos E.
      • Hadzijusufovic E.
      • Hillegersberg R.
      • et al.
      Technical details of the abdominal part during full robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy.
      Retrospective75666878.73921669.3316
      Liu
      • Liu Y.
      • Li J.J.
      • Zu P.
      • Liu H.X.
      • Yu Z.W.
      • Ren Y.
      Two-step method for creating a gastric tube during laparoscopic-thoracoscopic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy.
      Retrospective12261.478.7NA2721.622.1NANA
      Pan
      • Pan S.
      • Wang L.
      • Wu M.
      • Wang Q.
      • Shen G.
      • Chen G.
      A single intercostal space thoracoscopic approach for minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      Retrospective3664.5NANANA025011
      Zhang
      • Vande Walle C.
      • Ceelen W.P.
      • Boterberg T.
      • Vande Putte D.
      • Van Nieuwenhove Y.
      • Varin O.
      • et al.
      Anastomotic complications after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation are related to radiation dose to the gastric fundus.
      Retrospective9062.975.602685.625.61.114
      Berlth
      • Berlth F.
      • Plum P.S.
      • Chon S.H.
      • Gutschow C.A.
      • Bollschweiler E.
      • Hölscher A.H.
      Total minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma reduces postoperative pain and pneumonia compared to hybrid esophagectomy.
      Retrospective206195703501555513
      Dalton
      • Dalton B.G.A.
      • Ali A.A.
      • Crandall M.
      • Awad Z.T.
      Near infrared perfusion assessment of gastric conduit during minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      Retrospective40638090374547.52.59
      Grimminger
      • Grimminger P.P.
      • Tagkalos E.
      • Hadzijusufovic E.
      • Corvinus F.
      • Babic B.
      • Lang H.
      Change from hybrid to fully minimally invasive and robotic esophagectomy is possible without compromises.
      Retrospective5062827033814NA019
      Kang
      • Kang N.
      • Zhang R.
      • Ge W.
      • Si P.
      • Jiang M.
      • Huang Y.
      • et al.
      Major complications of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy using the purse string-stapled anastomotic technique in 215 patients with oesophageal carcinoma.
      Retrospective21562.983.30296.72.827.90.520
      Stenstra
      • Stenstra M.H.B.C.
      • van Workum F.
      • van den Wildenberg F.J.H.
      • Polat F.
      • Rosman C.
      Evolution of the surgical technique of minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy: description according to the IDEAL framework.
      Retrospective1646479.9NA27014.640.23.711
      Wu
      • Wu Z.
      • Wu M.
      • Wang Q.
      • Zhan T.
      • Wang L.
      • Pan S.
      • et al.
      Home enteral nutrition after minimally invasive esophagectomy can improve quality of life and reduce the risk of malnutrition.
      Prospective676282NANA1.5NA1.515
      van Workum
      • van Workum F.
      • Slaman A.E.
      • van Berge Henegouwen M.I.
      • Gisbertz S.S.
      • Kouwenhoven E.A.
      • van Det M.J.
      • et al.
      Propensity score-matched analysis comparing minimally invasive Ivor Lewis versus minimally invasive Mckeown esophagectomy.
      Retrospective5616584.193.626814.461.52.311
      Zhan
      • Zhan B.
      • Chen J.
      • Du S.
      • Xiong Y.
      • Liu J.
      Using the hand-sewn purse-string stapled anastomotic technique for minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      Retrospective25765.474.3NA3076.630.40.413.7
      Kukar
      • Kukar M.
      • Ben-David K.
      • Peng J.S.
      • Attwood K.
      • Thomas R.M.
      • Hennon M.
      • et al.
      Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy with linear stapled anastomosis associated with low leak and stricture rates.
      Retrospective1216656.271.9463552.92.58
      Meredith
      • Meredith K.
      • Blinn P.
      • Maramara T.
      • Takahashi C.
      • Huston J.
      • Shridhar R.
      Comparative outcomes of minimally invasive and robotic-assisted esophagectomy.
      Retrospective2396481.277.43543.325.91.79
      Pötscher
      • Pötscher A.
      • Bittermann C.
      • Längle F.
      Robot-assisted esophageal surgery using the da Vinci® Xi system: operative technique and initial experiences.
      Retrospective11NANANA38918.227.3NA16.7
      Souche
      • Souche R.
      • Nayeri M.
      • Chati R.
      • Huet E.
      • Donici I.
      • Tuech J.J.
      • et al.
      Thoracoscopy in prone position with two-lung ventilation compared to conventional thoracotomy during Ivor Lewis procedure: a multicenter case-control study.
      Retrospective586265.587.938031NA019
      Tagkalos
      • Tagkalos E.
      • Goense L.
      • Hoppe-Lotichius M.
      • Ruurda J.P.
      • Babic B.
      • Hadzijusufovic E.
      • et al.
      Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer: a propensity-matched analysis.
      Retrospective10063NA773521532331
      Valmasoni
      • Valmasoni M.
      • Capovilla G.
      • Pierobon E.S.
      • Moletta L.
      • Provenzano L.
      • Costantini M.
      • et al.
      A technical modification to the circular stapling anastomosis technique during minimally invasive Ivor Lewis procedure.
      Retrospective1060.4906034210500NA
      Wang
      • Wang F.
      • Zhang H.
      • Zheng Y.
      • Wang Z.
      • Geng Y.
      • Wang Y.
      Intrathoracic side-to-side esophagogastrostomy with a linear stapler and barbed suture in robot-assisted Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      Retrospective3762.794.621.63408.145.9010
      Wang
      • Wang Q.
      • Wu Z.
      • Zhan T.
      • Fang S.
      • Zhang S.
      • Shen G.
      • et al.
      Comparison of minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy and left transthoracic esophagectomy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients: a propensity score-matched analysis.
      Retrospective2166183.80265.56.950.92.313
      Wang
      • Wang W.P.
      • Chen L.Q.
      • Zhang H.L.
      • Yang Y.S.
      • He S.L.
      • Yuan Y.
      • et al.
      Modified intrathoracic esophagogastrostomy with minimally invasive robot-assisted Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy for cancer.
      Retrospective3159.78703876.519.4012
      Wang
      • Wang Z.
      • Zhang H.
      • Wang F.
      • Wang Y.
      Robot-assisted esophagogastric reconstruction in minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      Retrospective246387.516.7352.5NA12.5011
      Yin
      • Yin Q.
      • Wang W.
      • Liu H.
      • Yang G.
      • Zhou S.
      • Liu L.
      Clinical application and observation of modified Ivor-Lewis surgery in Siewert type II adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction.
      Retrospective2064.570NA267510012.8
      Zhang
      • Zhang H.
      • Wang Z.
      • Zheng Y.
      • Geng Y.
      • Wang F.
      • Chen L.Q.
      • et al.
      Robotic side-to-side and end-to-side stapled esophagogastric anastomosis of Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for cancer.
      Retrospective7761.688.320.83496.539012.2
      Zhang
      • Zhang Y.
      • Xiang J.
      • Han Y.
      • Huang M.
      • Hang J.
      • Abbas A.E.
      • et al.
      Initial experience of robot-assisted Ivor–Lewis esophagectomy: 61 consecutive cases from a single Chinese institution.
      Retrospective7661.877.30303.511.439.31.69
      Awad
      • Awad Z.T.
      • Abbas S.
      • Puri R.
      • Dalton B.
      • Chesire D.J.
      Minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MILE): technique and outcomes of 100 consecutive cases.
      Retrospective10065.18088384640310.3
      Berlth
      • Berlth F.
      • Mann C.
      • Uzun E.
      • Tagkalos E.
      • Hadzijusufovic E.
      • Hillegersberg R.
      • et al.
      Technical details of the abdominal part during full robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy.
      Retrospective100668484NA5NA111
      Gao
      • Gao H.J.
      • Mu J.W.
      • Pan W.M.
      • Brock M.
      • Wang M.L.
      • Han B.
      • et al.
      Totally mechanical linear stapled anastomosis for minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy: operative technique and short-term outcomes.
      Retrospective346291.2NANA2.929.4010
      Merritt
      • Merritt R.E.
      • Kneuertz P.J.
      • D'Souza D.M.
      • Abdel-Rasoul M.
      • Perry K.A.
      An analysis of outcomes after transition from open to minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
      Retrospective17362.180.3NANA440.51.28
      Shen