D J Martin1, J R Bessell, A Chew, D I Watson. 1. Flinders University Department of Surgery, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, South Australia, 5042, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although surgical resection currently is the preferred treatment for fit patients with resectable esophageal cancers, it is associated with a relatively high risk of morbidity and significant perioperative mortality. Currently, a range of open surgical approaches are used. More recently, minimally invasive approaches have become feasible, with the potential to reduce perioperative morbidity. This study investigated the outcomes from one such approach. METHODS: Outcome data were collected prospectively for 36 consecutive patients who underwent a minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. A three-stage approach was used, with all the patients undergoing a thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization, combined with either open or hand-assisted laparoscopic abdominal gastric mobilization, and open cervical anastomosis. An open abdominal approach was used for 15 of the patients and a hand-assisted laparoscopic approach for 21. A total of 34 patients had invasive malignancy, whereas 2 had preinvasive disease. A group of 23 patients (68%) who had invasive malignancies also received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy. RESULTS: The mean operating time ranged from 190 to 360 min (mean, 263 min). The median postoperative hospital stay was 16 days. In-hospital mortality was 5.5% (2/36), and perioperative morbidity was 41%. The perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing an open abdominal approach and those who had hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery were similar. For the patients who underwent a hand-assisted laparoscopic abdominal procedure, the total operating time was shorter (248 vs 281 min), and the blood loss was less (223 vs 440 ml). The median follow-up period was 30 months. The 4-year survival predicted by Kaplan-Meir for the 34 patients with invasive malignancy was 44%. CONCLUSION: The outcome for esophagectomy using thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization, with or without hand-assisted laparoscopic abdominal surgery, was comparable with data from conventional open surgical approaches. These approaches can be performed with an acceptable level of perioperative morbidity. Further application of these techniques, with close scrutiny of outcome data, is appropriate.
BACKGROUND: Although surgical resection currently is the preferred treatment for fit patients with resectable esophageal cancers, it is associated with a relatively high risk of morbidity and significant perioperative mortality. Currently, a range of open surgical approaches are used. More recently, minimally invasive approaches have become feasible, with the potential to reduce perioperative morbidity. This study investigated the outcomes from one such approach. METHODS: Outcome data were collected prospectively for 36 consecutive patients who underwent a minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. A three-stage approach was used, with all the patients undergoing a thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization, combined with either open or hand-assisted laparoscopic abdominal gastric mobilization, and open cervical anastomosis. An open abdominal approach was used for 15 of the patients and a hand-assisted laparoscopic approach for 21. A total of 34 patients had invasive malignancy, whereas 2 had preinvasive disease. A group of 23 patients (68%) who had invasive malignancies also received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy. RESULTS: The mean operating time ranged from 190 to 360 min (mean, 263 min). The median postoperative hospital stay was 16 days. In-hospital mortality was 5.5% (2/36), and perioperative morbidity was 41%. The perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing an open abdominal approach and those who had hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery were similar. For the patients who underwent a hand-assisted laparoscopic abdominal procedure, the total operating time was shorter (248 vs 281 min), and the blood loss was less (223 vs 440 ml). The median follow-up period was 30 months. The 4-year survival predicted by Kaplan-Meir for the 34 patients with invasive malignancy was 44%. CONCLUSION: The outcome for esophagectomy using thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization, with or without hand-assisted laparoscopic abdominal surgery, was comparable with data from conventional open surgical approaches. These approaches can be performed with an acceptable level of perioperative morbidity. Further application of these techniques, with close scrutiny of outcome data, is appropriate.
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Andrea E Siewers; Emily V A Finlayson; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Ida Batista; H Gilbert Welch; David E Wennberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Xun Zhang; David I Watson; Glyn G Jamieson; Carolyn Lally; Justin R Bessell; Peter G Devitt Journal: ANZ J Surg Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 1.872
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: James D Luketich; Miguel Alvelo-Rivera; Percival O Buenaventura; Neil A Christie; James S McCaughan; Virginia R Litle; Philip R Schauer; John M Close; Hiran C Fernando Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: H G Kenngott; J Neuhaus; B P Müller-Stich; I Wolf; M Vetter; H-P Meinzer; J Köninger; M W Büchler; C N Gutt Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2007-12-20 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Shailesh P Puntambekar; Geetanjali A Agarwal; Saurabh N Joshi; Neeraj V Rayate; Ravindra M Sathe; Anjali M Patil Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-03-05 Impact factor: 4.584