Meta‐analysis of health‐related quality of life after minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer. BJS 2017; 104: 1131-1140.
Published: 20th June 2017
Authors: J. H. Kauppila, S. Xie, A. Johar, S. R. Markar, P. Lagergren
The aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to compare health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes between minimally invasive and open oesophagectomy for cancer at different postoperative time points.
A search of PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library was performed for studies that compared open with minimally invasive oesophagectomy. A random‐effects meta‐analysis was conducted for studies that measured HRQoL scores using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ‐C30 and QLQ‐OES18 questionnaires. Mean differences (MDs) greater than 10 in scores were considered clinically relevant. Pooled effects of MDs with 95 per cent confidence intervals were estimated to assess statistical significance.
Nine studies were included in the qualitative analysis, involving 1157 patients who had minimally invasive surgery and 907 patients who underwent open surgery. Minimally invasive surgery resulted in better scores for global quality of life (MD 11·61, 95 per cent c.i. 3·84 to 19·39), physical function (MD 11·88, 3·92 to 19·84), fatigue (MD −13·18, −17·59 to −8·76) and pain (MD −15·85, −20·45 to −11·24) compared with open surgery at 3 months after surgery. At 6 and 12 months, no significant differences remained.
Patients report better global quality of life, physical function, fatigue and pain 3 months after minimally invasive surgery compared with open surgery. No such differences remain at longer follow‐up of 6 and 12 months.Read more
You may also be interested in
Relationship between intraoperative non‐technical performance and technical events in bariatric surgery.
Authors: A. B. Fecso, S. S. Kuzulugil, C. Babaoglu, A. B. Bener, T. P. Grantcharov
Notes: Ways to assess team performance
Cardiopulmonary fitness before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with oesophagogastric cancer.
Authors: M. Navidi, A. W. Phillips, S. M. Griffin, K. E. Duffield, A. Greystoke, K. Sumpter et al.
Notes: Chemotherapy reduces cardiopulmonary reserve
Randomized clinical trial
Multicentre randomized clinical trial of inspiratory muscle training versus usual care before surgery for oesophageal cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 502-511.
Authors: K. Valkenet, J. C. A. Trappenburg, J. P. Ruurda, E. M. Guinan, J. V. Reynolds, P. Nafteux et al.
Notes: Increased muscle function, no better outcome
Population‐based cohort study of surgical myotomy and pneumatic dilatation as primary interventions for oesophageal achalasia.
Authors: S. R. Markar, H. Mackenzie, A. Askari, O. Faiz, J. Hoare, G. Zaninotto et al.
Notes: Less reinterventions after surgical myotomy
Cost‐effectiveness analysis of stent type in endoscopic treatment of gastric leak after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. BJS 2018; 105: 570-577.
Authors: C. Cosse, L. Rebibo, F. Brazier, S. Hakim, R. Delcenserie, J. M. Regimbeau et al.
Notes: Double pigtail is better
Using textbook outcome as a measure of quality of care in oesophagogastric cancer surgery. BJS 2018; 105: 561-569.
Authors: R. T. van der Kaaij, M. V. de Rooij, F. van Coevorden, F. E. M. Voncken, P. Snaebjornsson, H. Boot et al.
Notes: Quality of care in one number
[18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT and prediction of histopathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction. BJS 2018; 105: 419-428.
Authors: T. Harustiak, M. Zemanova, P. Fencl, L. Hornofova, A. Pazdro, M. Snajdauf et al.
Notes: Of no use
Meta‐analysis of delayed gastric emptying after pylorus‐preserving versus pylorus‐resecting pancreatoduodenectomy. BJS 2018; 105: 339-349.
Authors: U. Klaiber, P. Probst, O. Strobel, C. W. Michalski, C. Dörr‐Harim, M. K. Diener et al.
Notes: No difference
Intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis and predictors of anastomotic leakage after oesophagectomy for cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 552-560.
Authors: J. A. H. Gooszen, L. Goense, S. S. Gisbertz, J. P. Ruurda, R. van Hillegersberg, M. I. van Berge Henegouwen et al.
Notes: Lower leak rates after intrathoracic anastomosis
Health‐related quality of life after open transhiatal and transthoracic oesophagectomy for cancer. BJS 2018; 105: 230-236.
Authors: J. H. Kauppila, A. Johar, J. A. Gossage, A. R. Davies, J. Zylstra, J. Lagergren et al.
Notes: Favours transhiatal
Meta‐analysis of metabolic surgery versus medical treatment for microvascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. BJS 2018; 105: 168-181.
Authors: A. T. Billeter, K. M. Scheurlen, P. Probst, S. Eichel, F. Nickel, S. Kopf et al.
Notes: Surgery is better
Patient‐derived organoid models help define personalized management of gastrointestinal cancer. BJS 2018; 105: e48-e60.
Authors: M. R. Aberle, R. A. Burkhart, H. Tiriac, S. W. M. Olde Damink, C. H. C. Dejong, D. A. Tuveson et al.
Notes: Accelerating the science of personal care