Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive esophagectomies versus open esophagectomies: an umbrella review
Sinéad Ramjit, Emmaline Ashley, Noel E. Donlon, Andreas R. R. Weiß, Frank Doyle, Leonie Heskin
- Year
- 2022
- Citations
- 8
Abstract
Traditionally, esophageal oncological resections have been performed via open approaches with well-documented levels of morbidity and mortality complicating the postoperative course. In contemporary terms, minimally invasive approaches have garnered sustained support in all areas of surgery, and there has been an exponential adaptation of this technology in upper GI surgery with the advent of laparoscopic and robotic techniques. The current literature, while growing, is inconsistent in reporting on the benefits of minimally invasive esophagectomies (MIEs) and this makes it difficult to ascertain best practice. The objective of this review was to critically appraise the current evidence addressing the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of MIEs versus open esophagectomies. A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching nine electronic databases to identify any systematic reviews published on this topic and recommended Joanna Briggs Institute approach to critical appraisal, study selection, data extraction and data synthesis was used to report the findings. A total of 13 systematic reviews of moderate to good quality encompassing 143 primary trials and 36,763 patients were included in the final synthesis. Eleven reviews examined safety parameters and found a generalized benefit of MIE. Efficacy was evaluated by eight systematic reviews and found each method to be equivalent. There were limited data to judiciously appraise cost-effectiveness as this was only evaluated in one review involving a single trial. There is improved safety and equivalent efficacy associated with MIE when compared with open esophagectomy. Cost-effectiveness of MIE cannot be sufficiently supported at this point in time. Further studies, especially those focused on cost-effectiveness are needed to strengthen the existing evidence to inform policy makers on feasibility of increased assimilation of this technology into clinical practice.
Keywords
Related papers
Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets
Daron Acemoğlu, Pascual Restrepo
2019
Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm
Leigh R. Hochberg, Daniel Bacher, Beata Jarosiewicz +8 more
2012
Campbell-Walsh urology
Alan J. Wein editor-in-chief
2012
Stroke rehabilitation
Peter Langhorne, Julie Bernhardt, Gert Kwakkel
2011