Literature DB >> 18071806

Minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer: laparoscopic transhiatal procedure or thoracoscopy in prone position followed by laparoscopy?

G Dapri1, J Himpens, G B Cadière.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive esophagectomy is rapidly emerging as a suitable surgical alternative to the open technique. This retrospective comparative study aimed to compare two minimally invasive techniques for esophagectomy: transhiatal laparoscopy with intrathoracic or cervical anastomosis (group A) and right thoracoscopy in prone position followed by laparoscopy and left cervicotomy (group B) performed by the same surgeon (G.B.C.). The operative time, perioperative blood loss, intensive care and total hospital stays, peri- and postoperative morbidity, in-hospital mortality, number of lymph nodes dissected, and survival were the outcome measures.
METHODS: Between April 1999 and August 2005, 24 patients (group A) and 15 patients (group B) underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer in the authors' department. Their median age was 61 years in group A and 61 years in group B. Preoperatively, the endoscopic location of the tumor was in the upper third in 2 cases (1 vs 1), the middle third in 11 cases (7 vs 4), and the lower third in 26 cases (16 vs 10). Two patients in each group received neoadjuvant chemo- and radiotherapy. One patient (group A) and two patients (group B) received only neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and three patients (group A) received only neoadjuvant radiotherapy.
RESULTS: The median operative time was 300 min (range, 240-420 min) in group A and 377 min (range, 240-540 min) in group B (nonsignificant difference [NS]). The median perioperative bleeding was 325 ml (range, 100-800 ml) in group A and 700 ml (range, 100-2,400 ml) in group B (NS). The perioperative complications included one splenectomy in each group and one conversion to thoracotomy in group B. The postoperative medical complications totaled three in group A and six in group B. The postoperative surgical complications included one hemoperitoneum, one pneumothorax, five anastomotic leaks, and two recurrent laryngeal nerve paralyses in group A and two tracheal necroses, four anastomotic leaks, one colic fistula, and three recurrent laryngeal nerve paralyses in group B. The median intensive care unit (ICU) stay was 5 days (range, 2-70 days) for group A and 5 days (range, 1-180 days) for group B (NS). The median hospital stay was 12 days (range, 7-98 days) for group A and 14 days (range, 7-480 days) for group B (p = 0.05). The early mortality rate was 0%. All the specimens were free of disease. The median number of mediastinal/periesophageal lymph nodes was 3 (range, 1-10) for group A and 4 (range, 2-13) for group B (NS), and the median number of celiac/perigastric lymph nodes was 11 (range, 2-31) for group A and 10 (range, 3-22) for group B (NS). After a median follow-up period of 42.4 months (range, 2-84 months) for group A and 19.1 months (range, 1.5-34 months) for group B, 12 patients in group A died after a median period of 22 months (range, 2-55 months), and 7 patients in group B died after a median time of 15 months (range, 1.5-23 months).
CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective comparative study showed that minimally invasive esophagectomy performed by thoracoscopy in the prone position is comparable with laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy in terms of the significant postoperative and survival outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18071806     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-007-9697-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  38 in total

1.  Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States.

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

2.  Laparoscopically assisted transhiatal resection for malignancies of the distal esophagus.

Authors:  W T Van den Broek; O Makay; F J Berends; J Z Yuan; A P J Houdijk; S Meijer; M A Cuesta
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-04-06       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Minimally invasive esophagectomy: short- and long-term outcomes.

Authors:  S Leibman; B M Smithers; D C Gotley; I Martin; J Thomas
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-12-28       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Transthoracic versus transhiatal resection for carcinoma of the esophagus: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  J B Hulscher; J G Tijssen; H Obertop; J J van Lanschot
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 4.330

5.  Comparison of minimally invasive esophagectomy with transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy.

Authors:  N T Nguyen; D M Follette; B M Wolfe; P D Schneider; P Roberts; J E Goodnight
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2000-08

6.  Injury to the major airways during subtotal esophagectomy: incidence, management, and sequelae.

Authors:  J B Hulscher; E ter Hofstede; J Kloek; H Obertop; P De Haan; J J Van Lanschot
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 5.209

7.  Video-assisted thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Authors:  K Kawahara; T Maekawa; K Okabayashi; T Hideshima; T Shiraishi; Y Yoshinaga; T Shirakusa
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Three-field lymphadenectomy for carcinoma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction in 174 R0 resections: impact on staging, disease-free survival, and outcome: a plea for adaptation of TNM classification in upper-half esophageal carcinoma.

Authors:  T Lerut; P Nafteux; J Moons; W Coosemans; G Decker; P De Leyn; D Van Raemdonck; N Ectors
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 9.  Reducing hospital morbidity and mortality following esophagectomy.

Authors:  B Zane Atkins; Ashish S Shah; Kelley A Hutcheson; Jennifer H Mangum; Theodore N Pappas; David H Harpole; Thomas A D'Amico
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.330

10.  Minimally invasive esophagectomy: outcomes in 222 patients.

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

View more
  14 in total

Review 1.  Thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position.

Authors:  Omar A Jarral; Sanjay Purkayastha; Thanos Athanasiou; Ara Darzi; George B Hanna; Emmanouil Zacharakis
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-03-07       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Authors:  Fernando A Herbella; Marco G Patti
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-08-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 3.  Minimally invasive oesophagectomy: current status and future direction.

Authors:  Nick Butler; Stuart Collins; Breda Memon; Muhammed Ashraf Memon
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-02-07       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Better postoperative oxygenation in thoracoscopic esophagectomy in prone positioning.

Authors:  Tomoaki Yatabe; Hiroyuki Kitagawa; Koichi Yamashita; Toyokazu Akimori; Kazuhiro Hanazaki; Masataka Yokoyama
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2010-06-05       Impact factor: 2.078

5.  Comparison of outcomes of open and minimally invasive esophagectomy in 183 patients with cancer.

Authors:  Fanyu Meng; Yin Li; Haibo Ma; Ming Yan; Ruixiang Zhang
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 6.  Oesophageal cancer--an overview.

Authors:  Michael Schweigert; Attila Dubecz; Hubert J Stein
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2013-01-08       Impact factor: 46.802

7.  Technical and perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy in the prone position.

Authors:  Ross F Goldberg; Steven P Bowers; Michael Parker; John A Stauffer; Horacio J Asbun; C Daniel Smith
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-08-31       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Minimally invasive esophagectomy: thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization for esophageal cancer with the patient in prone position.

Authors:  Roberto Petri; Marco Zuccolo; Marco Brizzolari; Luca Rossit; Alessandro Rosignoli; Vittorio Durastante; Gianfranco Petrin; Lucio De Cecchis; Mario Sorrentino
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Comparison of the perioperative outcome of esophagectomy by thoracoscopy in the prone position with that of thoracotomy in the lateral decubitus position.

Authors:  Tomoaki Yatabe; Hiroyuki Kitagawa; Koichi Yamashita; Kazuhiro Hanazaki; Masataka Yokoyama
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2012-10-13       Impact factor: 2.549

10.  Minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Authors:  Christy M Dunst; Lee L Swanström
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2009-09-30       Impact factor: 3.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.