• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • MIS Fellows Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • Search
    • Search the SAGES Site
    • Guidelines Search
    • Video Search
    • Search Images
    • Search Abstracts
  • OWLS/FLS
  • Login
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Comparative Analysis of Effectiveness of Endoscopic Surgical Techniques in the Management of Oesophageal Cancer

Comparative Analysis of Effectiveness of Endoscopic Surgical Techniques in the Management of Oesophageal Cancer

Background: Open transthoracic oesophogectomy is a major procedure which is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Recently thoracoscopic procedures have offered a potentially advantageous alternative because of less operative trauma compared with thoracotomy. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of open oesophagectomy(OE) with the best available minimally invasive technique, total minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIE).

Methods: Literature search was performed using Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases for comparative studies assessing different techniques of oesophagectomy. Only studies on humans and in English language were considered for inclusion. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis and heterogeneity was assessed. Primary outcome of interest were 30-day mortality and anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes included technique-related complications, postoperative morbidity and oncological clearance in terms of lymph node retrieved.

Results: Out of 281 studies identified, a total of six studies were included in the analysis finally. Studies included a total of 206 patients for TMIE and 333 for open oesophagectomy. There was no significant difference in the 30-day mortality and anastomotic leak between the two groups (OR 0.45; p = 0.10, OR 0.53, p= 0.05). Total morbidity was significantly lower in TMIE group (p= 0.02, OR=0.47, 95% CI 0.25, 0.87). Sub-analysis of co-morbidities revealed no significant difference in cardio-respiratory complications between the two groups. For all other operative and post-operative outcomes, there was no significant difference between the two groups. In addition, there was no significant difference in terms of lymph nodes retrieved between the two groups.

Conclusions: This meta-analysis demonstrated that TMIE decreased total morbidity compared to conventional oesophagectomy. However, 30-day mortality and morbidity in terms of cardio respiratory complications did not improve. Although the results suggest some advantages from the minimal invasive approach, large multi-institution trials are necessary before any claims can be made for the superiority of the minimally invasive approach in normal surgical practice.


Session: Poster

Program Number: P363

View Poster

61


  • Foundation
  • SAGES.TV
  • MyCME
  • Educational Activities

Copyright © 2025 Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons