BACKGROUND: Resection of the esophagus remains the only curative therapy for esophageal cancer. Conventional resections are right-side thoracotomy in combination with laparotomy, gastric tube creation, and the transhiatal approach according to Orringer. This study evaluated laparoscopically assisted transhiatal esophagus resection, which offers perfect visualization of the esophagus during mediastinal dissection without the necessity of a thoracotomy. METHODS: In this study, 25 laparoscopically assisted transhiatal esophagus resections were compared with a historical control group consisting of 20 open transhiatal esophagus resections. RESULTS: Nine laparoscopically assisted resections (36%) were converted to open procedures. The operating time was longer in the laparoscopically assisted group (300 vs 257 min; p < 0.05), but laparoscopically assisted esophagus resection was associated with less blood loss (600 vs 900 ml; p < 0.05) and shorter intensive care unit stay (1 vs 2 days; p < 0.05). There were no differences in morbidity, mortality, and hospital stay. During a shorter follow-up time for the laparoscopic group (17 vs 54 months), 11 patients (44%) in the laparoscopically assisted group and 10 (50%) patients in the open group had recurrence of the disease. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopically assisted transhiatal esophagus resection is a safe procedure with important advantages, as compared with the open procedure, such as less blood loss and shorter intensive care unit stay. At this point, the oncologic consequences are not clear.
BACKGROUND: Resection of the esophagus remains the only curative therapy for esophageal cancer. Conventional resections are right-side thoracotomy in combination with laparotomy, gastric tube creation, and the transhiatal approach according to Orringer. This study evaluated laparoscopically assisted transhiatal esophagus resection, which offers perfect visualization of the esophagus during mediastinal dissection without the necessity of a thoracotomy. METHODS: In this study, 25 laparoscopically assisted transhiatal esophagus resections were compared with a historical control group consisting of 20 open transhiatal esophagus resections. RESULTS: Nine laparoscopically assisted resections (36%) were converted to open procedures. The operating time was longer in the laparoscopically assisted group (300 vs 257 min; p < 0.05), but laparoscopically assisted esophagus resection was associated with less blood loss (600 vs 900 ml; p < 0.05) and shorter intensive care unit stay (1 vs 2 days; p < 0.05). There were no differences in morbidity, mortality, and hospital stay. During a shorter follow-up time for the laparoscopic group (17 vs 54 months), 11 patients (44%) in the laparoscopically assisted group and 10 (50%) patients in the open group had recurrence of the disease. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopically assisted transhiatal esophagus resection is a safe procedure with important advantages, as compared with the open procedure, such as less blood loss and shorter intensive care unit stay. At this point, the oncologic consequences are not clear.
Authors: J D Luketich; P R Schauer; N A Christie; T L Weigel; S Raja; H C Fernando; R J Keenan; N T Nguyen Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Jan B F Hulscher; Johanna W van Sandick; Angela G E M de Boer; Bas P L Wijnhoven; Jan G P Tijssen; Paul Fockens; Peep F M Stalmeier; Fiebo J W ten Kate; Herman van Dekken; Huug Obertop; Hugo W Tilanus; J Jan B van Lanschot Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-11-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: George Sgourakis; Ines Gockel; Arnold Radtke; Thomas J Musholt; Stephan Timm; Andreas Rink; Achilleas Tsiamis; Constantine Karaliotas; Hauke Lang Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2010-02-26 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Fernando Delgado Gomis; Segundo A Gómez Abril; Manuel Martínez Abad; José M Guallar Rovira Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Magnus Kaffarnik; Gabriel Stoeger; Julia Liebich; Christian Grieser; Johann Pratschke; Martin Stockmann Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Joris J G Scheepers; Donald L van der Peet; Alexander A F A Veenhof; Miguel A Cuesta Journal: J Minim Access Surg Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 1.407