Minimally Invasive Oesophagectomy vs. Open: Short-Term Results

Abstract Background Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy has historically been associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and prolonged recovery, partly due to the complexity of its two-stage approach and the associated patient comorbidities.1 Minimally invasive techniques have emerged as a promising alternative to reduce perioperative complications. Minimally invasive Ivor-Lewis oesophagectomy (MIO) is a result of advancements in laparoscopic surgery and a growing understanding of the morbidity linked to traditional open oesophagectomy. 2 However, only a limited number of centres in Australia currently perform MIO 3. Methods This retrospective cohort study compares the outcomes of minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) with traditional open oesophagectomy. The primary outcomes assessed include complication rates and length of stay, while secondary outcomes focus on time to diet and mobilisation. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS. Results A total of 10 minimally invasive oesophagectomies were compared with 10 open oesophagectomies; there were 9 males and 1 female in each group. Initial findings indicate that oncological outcomes were comparable, with MIO demonstrating a trend towards reduced postoperative complications and shorter hospital stays. Conclusion The evolution of oesophagectomy, driven by advancements in surgical technology, highlights minimally invasive techniques as a safe and effective alternative to open surgery. These approaches not only maintain oncological efficacy but also offer the potential to reduce postoperative morbidity and accelerate recovery. We anticipate that minimally invasive oesophagectomy will gain increasing favour representing a significant advancement in surgical practice.