Hybrid minimally invasive oesophagectomy associated with lower rates of conduit necrosis, pneumonia, and nerve paralysisHybrid minimally invasive surgery shows fewer complications for esophageal cancer

Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England Published July 31, 2026 Study authors: Naim N, Reza Mds PubMed ↗ DOI ↗ Editorial oversight: Dr. Lars van Dijk, PhD · Surgical, Procedural & Diagnostic

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway

Note that HMIE significantly reduces conduit necrosis, pneumonia, and nerve paralysis compared to open oesophagectomy.

This meta-analysis evaluated the comparative outcomes of hybrid minimally invasive oesophagectomy (HMIE) versus open oesophagectomy (OE) in patients with oesophageal cancer undergoing surgical resection. The analysis synthesized data from 8 studies involving a total population of 6053 patients to determine if the less invasive approach offered superior safety profiles or improved clinical outcomes compared to traditional open surgery.

The primary focus of the comparison was perioperative and postoperative complications. HMIE was compared against OE across several specific metrics, including conduit necrosis, postoperative pneumonia, recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis, bleeding, and various grades of Clavien-Dindo complications. Additionally, secondary outcomes such as anastomotic leaks, chyle leaks, duration of surgery, hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and mortality rates at both the in-hospital and 90-day marks were assessed to determine the overall impact on patient recovery.

In terms of primary outcome results, HMIE was associated with significantly lower rates of conduit necrosis compared to OE (RR=3.54; 95% CI [1.07, 11.73]; p=0.04). Furthermore, patients undergoing HMIE experienced significantly lower rates of postoperative pneumonia (RR=1.29; 95% CI [1.05, 1.57]; p=0.01) and recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (RR=2.51; 95% CI [1.13, 5.55]; p=0.02). These results suggest a measurable reduction in specific surgical complications associated with the minimally invasive approach.

Several other outcomes showed no statistically significant difference between HMIE and OE. Specifically, there was no significant difference in Clavien-Dindo complication grades IIIa-IVb (RR=1.13; 95% CI [0.92, 1.38]; p=0.24) or grade V complications (RR=1.03; 95% CI [0.30, 3.51]; p=0.96). Additionally, no significant differences were reported for bleeding, in-hospital mortality, 90-day mortality, duration of surgery, hospital stay, or intensive care unit stay. Regarding anastomotic and chyle leaks, OE was associated with fewer cases than HMIE, though this finding did not reach statistical significance.

These results suggest that while the surgical technique (HMIE) provides specific protective benefits against localized complications like conduit necrosis and nerve damage, it does not appear to significantly alter major systemic outcomes or mortality rates compared to open surgery. These findings align with broader trends in oncological surgery where minimally invasive techniques aim to reduce morbidity without compromising primary survival goals. Methodological limitations noted include the need for further studies to assess long-term oncologic outcomes, which were not fully captured in this analysis. Because these results are derived from a meta-analysis of 8 studies, the association between HMIE and reduced complication rates is established but requires careful interpretation regarding long-term durability. Clinically, these findings suggest that the surgical approach should be tailored to individual patient profiles. While HMIE offers specific advantages in reducing certain perioperative complications like pneumonia and nerve paralysis, it does not currently show a significant advantage over open surgery in terms of mortality or overall complication grades. Questions remain regarding the long-term oncologic impact of HMIE versus OE on survival rates for patients with oesophageal cancer.

For patients facing esophageal cancer, the choice of surgical technique is a critical part of their treatment plan. Surgery is often necessary to remove the tumor, but it can be a complex procedure with various potential risks. Recent research has looked into whether a hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) offers better safety outcomes compared to traditional open surgery for these patients.

To investigate this, researchers conducted a meta-analysis, which is a high-level review that combines data from multiple studies. This specific analysis included data from over 6,000 patients who underwent surgery for esophageal cancer. By looking at such a large group of people, the researchers aimed to see if there were clear differences in complications between those who had the hybrid minimally invasive method and those who had traditional open surgery.

The findings showed that patients who underwent the hybrid minimally invasive procedure had lower rates of several specific complications. These included conduit necrosis, postoperative pneumonia, and recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis. These results suggest that the less invasive approach may help protect certain bodily functions and reduce some common post-surgical infections. However, for other major outcomes, such as bleeding, hospital stay duration, and overall mortality rates at 90 days, there was no significant difference between the two surgical methods.

It is important to note that while these results are encouraging regarding specific complications like pneumonia and nerve issues, they do not mean one surgery is perfect for everyone. The study did not find a statistically significant difference in other areas, such as anastomotic or chyle leaks. Because this was a meta-analysis of existing studies rather than a single new trial, the results show an association between the surgical method and lower complication rates, but they do not prove that one method is always superior for every patient.

For patients today, these findings mean that both surgical methods are viable options, but the hybrid minimally invasive approach shows promise in reducing specific risks. Doctors will still need to look at each patient's unique health profile and personal needs to decide which surgery is best. More research is still needed to see how these different techniques affect long-term cancer outcomes over several years.

What this means for you:

Hybrid minimally invasive surgery may reduce some specific complications like pneumonia in esophageal cancer patients.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis

Sample sizen = 6,053

EvidenceLevel 1

PublishedJul 2026

PMID40905859

View Original Abstract ↓

INTRODUCTION: Surgical resection, with or without neoadjuvant therapy, remains the primary treatment for oesophageal cancer. The two main surgical approaches are open oesophagectomy (OE) and hybrid minimally invasive oesophagectomy (HMIE). However, their relative safety and efficacy remain controversial. This review aims to compare perioperative and postoperative complications between OE and HMIE in the management of oesophageal cancer. METHODS: Web of Science, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies. Odds ratios (OR), standard mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Eight studies involving 6,053 patients were included. HMIE was associated significantly with lower rates of conduit necrosis (risk ratio (RR)=3.54, 95% CI [1.07, 11.73]; =0.04), postoperative pneumonia (RR=1.29, 95% CI [1.05, 1.57]; =0.01) and recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (RR=2.51, 95% CI [1.13, 5.55]; =0.02). No significant differences were observed in Clavien-Dindo complication grades IIIa-IVb (RR=1.13, 95% CI [0.92, 1.38]; =0.24), grade V complications (RR=1.03, 95% CI [0.30, 3.51]; =0.96), bleeding, inhospital mortality, 90-day mortality, duration of surgery, hospital stay or intensive care unit stay. Although not statistically significant, OE was associated with fewer cases of anastomotic and chyle leaks. CONCLUSIONS: Both OE and HMIE have distinct advantages and drawbacks. HMIE appears superior in reducing conduit necrosis, postoperative pneumonia and nerve paralysis, whereas OE has slightly lower rates of anastomotic and chyle leaks. Surgical approach should be tailored to individual patient profiles. Further studies are needed to assess long-term oncologic outcomes.

Hybrid minimally invasive oesophagectomy associated with lower rates of conduit necrosis, pneumonia, and nerve paralysisHybrid minimally invasive surgery shows fewer complications for esophageal cancer

Study Details

Global GJB2 mutation prevalence in nonsyndromic hearing impairment

One in four people with hearing loss carries a specific gene mutation

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Hybrid minimally invasive oesophagectomy associated with lower rates of conduit necrosis, pneumonia, and nerve paralysisHybrid minimally invasive surgery shows fewer complications for esophageal cancer

Study Details

Global GJB2 mutation prevalence in nonsyndromic hearing impairment

One in four people with hearing loss carries a specific gene mutation

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Related in ENT (Otolaryngology)

From Other Specialties