OBJECTIVE: Debate continues as to whether transhiatal esophagectomy results in lower morbidity and mortality than transthoracic esophagectomy. Most data addressing this issue are derived from single-institution studies. To investigate this question from a nationwide multicenter perspective, we used the Veterans Administration National Surgical Quality Improvement Program to prospectively analyze risk factors for morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy or transhiatal esophagectomy from 1991 to 2000. METHODS: Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed on 945 patients (mean age, 63 +/- 10 years). There were 562 transthoracic esophagectomies and 383 transhiatal esophagectomies in 105 hospitals, with complete 30-day outcomes recorded. RESULTS: There were no differences in recorded preoperative variables between the groups that might bias any comparisons. Overall mortality was 10.0% (56/562) for transthoracic esophagectomy and 9.9% (38/383) for transhiatal esophagectomy (P =.983). Morbidity occurred in 47% (266/562) of patients after transthoracic esophagectomy and in 49% (188/383) of patients after transhiatal esophagectomy (P =.596). Risk factors for mortality common to both groups included a serum albumin value of less than 3.5 g/dL, age greater than 65 years, and blood transfusion of greater than 4 units (P <.05). When comparing transthoracic esophagectomy with transhiatal esophagectomy, there was no difference in the incidence of respiratory failure, renal failure, bleeding, infection, sepsis, anastomotic complications, or mediastinitis. Wound dehiscence occurred in 5% (18/383) of patients undergoing transhiatal esophagectomy and only 2% (12/562) of patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy (P =.036). CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate no significant differences in preoperative variables and postoperative mortality or morbidity between transthoracic esophagectomy and transhiatal esophagectomy on the basis of a 10-year, prospective, multi-institutional, nationwide study.
OBJECTIVE: Debate continues as to whether transhiatal esophagectomy results in lower morbidity and mortality than transthoracic esophagectomy. Most data addressing this issue are derived from single-institution studies. To investigate this question from a nationwide multicenter perspective, we used the Veterans Administration National Surgical Quality Improvement Program to prospectively analyze risk factors for morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy or transhiatal esophagectomy from 1991 to 2000. METHODS: Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed on 945 patients (mean age, 63 +/- 10 years). There were 562 transthoracic esophagectomies and 383 transhiatal esophagectomies in 105 hospitals, with complete 30-day outcomes recorded. RESULTS: There were no differences in recorded preoperative variables between the groups that might bias any comparisons. Overall mortality was 10.0% (56/562) for transthoracic esophagectomy and 9.9% (38/383) for transhiatal esophagectomy (P =.983). Morbidity occurred in 47% (266/562) of patients after transthoracic esophagectomy and in 49% (188/383) of patients after transhiatal esophagectomy (P =.596). Risk factors for mortality common to both groups included a serum albumin value of less than 3.5 g/dL, age greater than 65 years, and blood transfusion of greater than 4 units (P <.05). When comparing transthoracic esophagectomy with transhiatal esophagectomy, there was no difference in the incidence of respiratory failure, renal failure, bleeding, infection, sepsis, anastomotic complications, or mediastinitis. Wound dehiscence occurred in 5% (18/383) of patients undergoing transhiatal esophagectomy and only 2% (12/562) of patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy (P =.036). CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate no significant differences in preoperative variables and postoperative mortality or morbidity between transthoracic esophagectomy and transhiatal esophagectomy on the basis of a 10-year, prospective, multi-institutional, nationwide study.
Authors: Gregory O'Grady; Ahmer M Hameed; Tony C Pang; Emma Johnston; Vincent T Lam; Arthur J Richardson; Michael J Hollands Journal: World J Surg Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Oliver S Eng; Renee L Arlow; Dirk Moore; Chunxia Chen; John E Langenfeld; David A August; Darren R Carpizo Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Paul J Speicher; Brian R Englum; Asvin M Ganapathi; Xiaofei Wang; Matthew G Hartwig; Thomas A D'Amico; Mark F Berry Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Donald E Low; Sonia Kunz; Drew Schembre; Henry Otero; Tom Malpass; Alex Hsi; Guobin Song; Richard Hinke; Richard A Kozarek Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2007-08-31 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Arianna Barbetta; Meier Hsu; Kay See Tan; Dessislava Stefanova; Koby Herman; Prasad S Adusumilli; Manjit S Bains; Matthew J Bott; James M Isbell; Yelena Y Janjigian; Geoffrey Y Ku; Bernard J Park; Abraham J Wu; David R Jones; Daniela Molena Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 5.209