Nationwide analysis of short-term surgical outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy for XXXX .

@entity5 @entity1 @entity418 @entity3
BACKGROUND: @entity3 ( @entity3 ) is being increasingly utilized for @entity418 . It is unclear if @entity3 if being safely performed with satisfactory outcomes across the USA. We aimed to analyze the short-term surgical outcomes of @entity3 as compared to open esophagectomy (OE). METHODS: The National @entity5 Database (NCDB) was queried for @entity1 who underwent @entity3 or OE for esophageal @entity5 between 2010 and 2011. Margin positivity, lymph node retrieval, 30-day mortality, 30-day unplanned readmission rate and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 4047 @entity1 were identified; 3050 (75.4%) underwent OE, and 997 (24.6%) underwent @entity3 . The proportion of @entity3 increased from 21.9% in 2010 to 27.4% in 2011 (p  <  0.001). The conversion rate was 13.7%. There were no differences in- @entity1 or @entity5 characteristics between the two cohorts. OE and @entity3 were comparable in terms of margin positive resection rate (7.4% vs. 8.1%, p  =  0.48), 30-day unplanned readmission rate (7.6% vs. 7.2%, p  =  0.64) and 30-day mortality rate (4.3% vs. 3.3%, p  =  0.71). Compared to OE, @entity3 was associated with higher node retrieval (median 12 vs 14, p  <  0.001), and shorter hospital stay (median 11.0 vs 10.0 days, p  <  0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that surgical approach (OE vs @entity3 ) was not associated with 30-day mortality rate. In an ANCOVA analysis, @entity3 was independently associated with a shorter hospital stay compared to OE (estimated mean difference 1.57      0.53 days, p  =  0.003). @entity3 @entity1 who underwent conversion had a longer hospital stay compared to those who did not (11.0 vs 10.0 days, p  =  0.02). CONCLUSION: @entity3 is being offered more frequently to @entity1 with @entity418 , and maybe accompanied with better short-term outcomes including shorter hospital stay when compared to open esophagectomy.
