Risk and management of adverse events in minimally invasive esophagectomy

Table 1 Comparison of key outcomes between minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy

Parameter	Minimally invasive esophagectomy	Open esophagectomy
Pulmonary complications	Lower incidence due to reduced surgical trauma and improved respiratory mechanics	Higher incidence due to larger thoracic incisions and greater disruption of respiratory structures
Anastomotic leak rate	Comparable rates with optimized techniques and better visualization during surgery	Slightly higher rates in some studies due to technical challenges with large incisions
Wound infections	Significantly reduced risk due to smaller incision size and less exposure to contamination	Higher risk associated with larger incision size and longer healing times
Postoperative recovery	Faster recovery with shorter hospital stays and quicker return to daily activities	Slower recovery due to greater surgical stress and longer hospitalization
Oncological outcomes	Comparable lymph node harvest and survival rates	Equivalent oncological efficacy with traditional surgical thoroughness
Technological requirements	Requires advanced equipment and surgeon training (e.g., robotic systems, IONM)	Requires fewer technological resources but depends heavily on surgical expertise

IONM: Intraoperative nerve monitoring.