Aim: To compare the peri- and postoperative data between a hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) and the conventional Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

Methods: Retrospective comparison of perioperative characteristics, postoperative complications, and survival between HMIE and Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

Results: 216 patients were included, with 160 procedures performed with the conventional and 56 with the HMIE approach. Lower perioperative blood loss was found in the HMIE group (600 ml versus 200 ml, p < 0.001). Also, a higher median number of lymph nodes were harvested in the HMIE group (median 28) than in the conventional group (median 23) (p = 0.002). The median length of stay was longer in the conventional group compared to the HMIE group (11.5 days versus 10.0 days, p = 0.03). Patients in the HMIE group experienced fewer grade 2 or higher complications than the conventional group (39% versus 57%, p = 0.03). The rate of all pulmonary (51% versus 43%, p = 0.32) and severe pulmonary complications (38% versus 18%, p = 0.23) was not statistically different between the groups.

Conclusions: The HMIE was associated with lower intraoperative blood loss, a higher lymph node harvest, and a shorter hospital stay. However, the inborn limitations with the retrospective design stress a need for prospective randomized studies. Registration number is DRKS00013023.