OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare outcome of vagal-sparing esophagectomy with transhiatal and en bloc esophagectomy in patients with intramucosal adenocarcinoma or high-grade dysplasia. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Intramucosal adenocarcinoma and high grade dysplasia have a low likelihood of lymphatic or systemic metastases and esophagectomy is curative in most patients. However, traditional esophagectomy is associated with significant morbidity and altered gastrointestinal function. A vagal-sparing esophagectomy offers the advantages of complete disease removal with the potential for reduced morbidity and a better functional outcome. METHOD: Retrospective review of outcome in patients with intramucosal adenocarcinoma or high grade dysplasia that had a vagal-sparing (n=49), transhiatal (n=39) or en bloc (n=21) esophagectomy. RESULTS: The length of hospital stay and the incidence of major complications was significantly reduced with a vagal-sparing esophagectomy compared with a transhiatal or en bloc resection. Further, postvagotomy dumping and diarrhea symptoms were significantly less common, and weight was better maintained postoperatively with a vagal-sparing esophagectomy. Recurrent cancer has developed in only 1 patient. CONCLUSION: Survival with intramucosal adenocarcinoma or Barrett's with high-grade dysplasia is independent of the type of resection. A vagal-sparing esophagectomy is associated with significantly less perioperative morbidity and a shorter hospital stay than a transhiatal or en bloc esophagectomy. Further, late morbidity including weight loss, dumping, and diarrhea are significantly less likely after a vagal-sparing approach. Consequently a vagal-sparing esophagectomy is the preferred procedure for patients with intramucosal adenocarcinoma or high grade dysplasia.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare outcome of vagal-sparing esophagectomy with transhiatal and en bloc esophagectomy in patients with intramucosal adenocarcinoma or high-grade dysplasia. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Intramucosal adenocarcinoma and high grade dysplasia have a low likelihood of lymphatic or systemic metastases and esophagectomy is curative in most patients. However, traditional esophagectomy is associated with significant morbidity and altered gastrointestinal function. A vagal-sparing esophagectomy offers the advantages of complete disease removal with the potential for reduced morbidity and a better functional outcome. METHOD: Retrospective review of outcome in patients with intramucosal adenocarcinoma or high grade dysplasia that had a vagal-sparing (n=49), transhiatal (n=39) or en bloc (n=21) esophagectomy. RESULTS: The length of hospital stay and the incidence of major complications was significantly reduced with a vagal-sparing esophagectomy compared with a transhiatal or en bloc resection. Further, postvagotomy dumping and diarrhea symptoms were significantly less common, and weight was better maintained postoperatively with a vagal-sparing esophagectomy. Recurrent cancer has developed in only 1 patient. CONCLUSION: Survival with intramucosal adenocarcinoma or Barrett's with high-grade dysplasia is independent of the type of resection. A vagal-sparing esophagectomy is associated with significantly less perioperative morbidity and a shorter hospital stay than a transhiatal or en bloc esophagectomy. Further, late morbidity including weight loss, dumping, and diarrhea are significantly less likely after a vagal-sparing approach. Consequently a vagal-sparing esophagectomy is the preferred procedure for patients with intramucosal adenocarcinoma or high grade dysplasia.
Authors: Ralf Metzger; Ute Warnecke-Eberz; Hakan Alakus; Fabian Kütting; Jan Brabender; Daniel Vallböhmer; Peter P Grimminger; Stefan P Mönig; Uta Drebber; Arnulf H Hölscher; Elfriede Bollschweiler Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Teus J Weijs; Jelle P Ruurda; Misha D P Luyer; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; Richard van Hillegersberg; Ronald L A W Bleys Journal: J Anat Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 2.610
Authors: Cathy Bennett; Nimish Vakil; Jacques Bergman; Rebecca Harrison; Robert Odze; Michael Vieth; Scott Sanders; Laura Gay; Oliver Pech; Gaius Longcroft-Wheaton; Yvonne Romero; John Inadomi; Jan Tack; Douglas A Corley; Hendrik Manner; Susi Green; David Al Dulaimi; Haythem Ali; Bill Allum; Mark Anderson; Howard Curtis; Gary Falk; M Brian Fennerty; Grant Fullarton; Kausilia Krishnadath; Stephen J Meltzer; David Armstrong; Robert Ganz; Gianpaolo Cengia; James J Going; John Goldblum; Charles Gordon; Heike Grabsch; Chris Haigh; Michio Hongo; David Johnston; Ricky Forbes-Young; Elaine Kay; Philip Kaye; Toni Lerut; Laurence B Lovat; Lars Lundell; Philip Mairs; Tadakuza Shimoda; Stuart Spechler; Stephen Sontag; Peter Malfertheiner; Iain Murray; Manoj Nanji; David Poller; Krish Ragunath; Jaroslaw Regula; Renzo Cestari; Neil Shepherd; Rajvinder Singh; Hubert J Stein; Nicholas J Talley; Jean-Paul Galmiche; Tony C K Tham; Peter Watson; Lisa Yerian; Massimo Rugge; Thomas W Rice; John Hart; Stuart Gittens; David Hewin; Juergen Hochberger; Peter Kahrilas; Sean Preston; Richard Sampliner; Prateek Sharma; Robert Stuart; Kenneth Wang; Irving Waxman; Chris Abley; Duncan Loft; Ian Penman; Nicholas J Shaheen; Amitabh Chak; Gareth Davies; Lorna Dunn; Yngve Falck-Ytter; John Decaestecker; Pradeep Bhandari; Christian Ell; S Michael Griffin; Stephen Attwood; Hugh Barr; John Allen; Mark K Ferguson; Paul Moayyedi; Janusz A Z Jankowski Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Daniela Molena; Francisco Schlottmann; Joshua A Boys; Shanda H Blackmon; Karen J Dickinson; Christy M Dunst; Wayne L Hofstetter; Michal J Lada; Brian E Louie; Benedetto Mungo; Thomas J Watson; Steven R DeMeester Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Rohit R Sharma; Mark J London; Laura L Magenta; Mitchell C Posner; Kevin K Roggin Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2009-06-10 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: N J O'Farrell; J V Reynolds; N Ravi; J O Larkin; V Malik; G F Wilson; C Muldoon; D O'Toole Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2012-12-16 Impact factor: 1.568