ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Limited robust evidence exists comparing outcomes following completely minimally invasive oesophagectomy (CMIO) to hybrid oesophagectomy (HO) in the treatment of resectable oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junctional (GOJ) cancer. This multi-centre study aims to assess postoperative morbidity between HO and CMIO according to the full Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) complication platform. METHODS: All consecutive patients undergoing an Ivor-Lewis HO or Ivor-Lewis CMIO for cancer between 2016 and 2018 in three UK tertiary centres were included. The primary study outcome was 30-day overall complications, evaluated by the ECCG complication subgroups. Secondary outcomes included survival outcomes and perioperative parameters between the two approaches. RESULTS: Of the 382 patients included, 228 (59.7%) patients had HOs and 154 (40.3%) patients had CMIOs with no inter-group baseline differences. Patients undergoing CMIO experienced less 30-day postoperative complications compared to those under undergoing HO (43.5% vs 57.0%, p = 0.010). ECCG defined pulmonary and infective complications were less frequent in the CMIO group. Anastomotic leak rates and oncological outcomes were similar between the two groups. Independent predictors of 30-day postoperative complications include surgical approach with HO and high ASA grade on multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Ivor-Lewis CMIO demonstrates superior short-term surgical outcomes when compared to Ivor-Lewis HO with no compromise in oncological feasibility. Anastomotic leak rates were equivalent between both groups. A robust randomised controlled trial is required to validate the findings of this study.
