Completely Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Hybrid Esophagectomy for Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Junctional Cancer: Clinical and Short-Term Oncological Outcomes.

BACKGROUND Minimally invasive surgery for resectable esophageal and gastroesophageal junctional (GEJ) cancer significantly reduces morbidity when compared with open surgery, as is evident from published landmark trials. Comparison of outcomes between hybrid esophagectomy (HE) and completely minimally invasive esophagectomy (CMIE) remains unclear. OBJECTIVE We aimed to ascertain whether CMIE is associated with less postoperative complications compared with HE without oncological compromise. METHODS All consecutive two-stage HEs and CMIEs performed between 2016 and 2018 were included. All procedures were performed with an intrathoracic anastomosis. Primary clinical outcomes were pulmonary infective and overall complications within 30 days of surgery, while primary oncological outcomes included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at both 6 months and to date. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative variables and postoperative clinical parameters. RESULTS Overall, 98 patients had CMIEs and 49 patients had HEs. There were no baseline differences between the two groups. Thirty-day postoperative pulmonary infection rates were lower in the CMIE group compared with the HE group (12.2% vs. 28.6%; p = 0.014), and 30-day overall postoperative complication rates were also lower following CMIE (35.7% vs. 59.2%; p = 0.007). OS and DFS were similar between the two groups at 6 months (p = 0.201 and p = 0.109, respectively). CONCLUSIONS CMIE is associated with less pulmonary infective and overall postoperative complications compared with HE for resectable esophageal and GEJ cancer. No intergroup difference was observed regarding short-term survival and cancer recurrence in patients undergoing CMIE and HE. A randomized controlled trial comparing the two operative approaches is required to validate these findings.