TY - JOUR
T1 - No difference in the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications between abdominal laparoscopy and laparotomy for minimally invasive thoracoscopic esophagectomy
T2 - a retrospective cohort study using a nationwide Japanese database
AU - Takeuchi, Masashi
AU - Endo, Hideki
AU - Kawakubo, Hirofumi
AU - Matsuda, Satoru
AU - Kikuchi, Hirotoshi
AU - Kanaji, Shingo
AU - Kumamaru, Hiraku
AU - Miyata, Hiroaki
AU - Ueno, Hideki
AU - Seto, Yasuyuki
AU - Watanabe, Masayuki
AU - Doki, Yuichiro
AU - Kitagawa, Yuko
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, The Author(s) under exclusive licence to The Japan Esophageal Society.
PY - 2024/1
Y1 - 2024/1
N2 - Introduction: There remains a lack of evidence regarding the optimal abdominal approach, including laparoscopy, hand-assisted, and open laparotomy for minimally invasive thoracoscopic esophagectomy. We aimed to compare the incidence of postoperative complications, particularly pulmonary complications, between laparoscopy and open laparotomy for minimally invasive thoracoscopic esophagectomy using nationwide Japanese databases. Methods: Data from patients in the National Clinical Database (NCD) who underwent thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer were analyzed. The incidence of pulmonary complications was compared between abdominal laparoscopy and laparotomy after matching the propensity scores (PS) from preoperative factors to account for confounding bias. Laparoscopic-assisted surgery (LAS) was also compared to hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS). Results: Of the 24,790 patients who underwent esophagectomy between 2018 and 2021, data from 12,633 underwent thoracoscopic procedure. The proportion of patients who experienced pulmonary complications did not significantly differ between the laparoscopy group and the laparotomy group after matching (664/3195 patients, 20.8% versus 702/3195 patients, 22.0%; P = 0.25). No difference in the incidence of pulmonary complications was observed among patients treated using the laparoscopic approach (508/2439 patients, 20.8% in the LAS group versus 498/2439 patients, 20.4% in the HALS group; P = 0.72). Conclusions: We observed no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications between laparoscopy and laparotomy for thoracoscopic esophagectomy. Short-term outcomes were similar between the laparoscopic-assisted approach and the hand-assisted approach. This study provides valuable insights into the optimal abdominal approach for thoracoscopic esophagectomy using data from a nationwide database that reflect real-world clinical practice.
AB - Introduction: There remains a lack of evidence regarding the optimal abdominal approach, including laparoscopy, hand-assisted, and open laparotomy for minimally invasive thoracoscopic esophagectomy. We aimed to compare the incidence of postoperative complications, particularly pulmonary complications, between laparoscopy and open laparotomy for minimally invasive thoracoscopic esophagectomy using nationwide Japanese databases. Methods: Data from patients in the National Clinical Database (NCD) who underwent thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer were analyzed. The incidence of pulmonary complications was compared between abdominal laparoscopy and laparotomy after matching the propensity scores (PS) from preoperative factors to account for confounding bias. Laparoscopic-assisted surgery (LAS) was also compared to hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS). Results: Of the 24,790 patients who underwent esophagectomy between 2018 and 2021, data from 12,633 underwent thoracoscopic procedure. The proportion of patients who experienced pulmonary complications did not significantly differ between the laparoscopy group and the laparotomy group after matching (664/3195 patients, 20.8% versus 702/3195 patients, 22.0%; P = 0.25). No difference in the incidence of pulmonary complications was observed among patients treated using the laparoscopic approach (508/2439 patients, 20.8% in the LAS group versus 498/2439 patients, 20.4% in the HALS group; P = 0.72). Conclusions: We observed no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications between laparoscopy and laparotomy for thoracoscopic esophagectomy. Short-term outcomes were similar between the laparoscopic-assisted approach and the hand-assisted approach. This study provides valuable insights into the optimal abdominal approach for thoracoscopic esophagectomy using data from a nationwide database that reflect real-world clinical practice.
KW - Abdominal approach
KW - Esophageal cancer
KW - Esophagectomy
KW - Surgical outcome
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85178426284&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85178426284&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10388-023-01032-w
DO - 10.1007/s10388-023-01032-w
M3 - Article
C2 - 38038806
AN - SCOPUS:85178426284
SN - 1612-9059
VL - 21
SP - 11
EP - 21
JO - Esophagus
JF - Esophagus
IS - 1
ER -