Literature DB >> 18320278

Thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization during minimally invasive esophagectomy: a head-to-head comparison of prone versus decubitus positions.

Thomas Fabian1, Jeremiah Martin, Mario Katigbak, Alicia A McKelvey, John A Federico.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is being performed at an increasing number of institutions. The thoracoscopic portion is generally performed in the left lateral decubitus position. Recently there has been increasing interest in esophageal mobilization in the prone position and the potential benefits of this technique with regard to operative time, surgeon ergonomics, and operative exposure. We sought to objectively compare thoracoscopic mobilization of the esophagus in the left lateral decubitus position versus the prone position and identify potential differences between the two techniques.
METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained esophagectomy database identified 44 patients undergoing MIE during a 20-month period (June 2005-February 2007). Of these, 32 patients underwent thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization with cervical esophagogastric anastomosis. Eleven cases were performed in the left lateral decubitus position and 21 performed in the prone position.
RESULTS: The patients were comparable in age, tumor stage, and fraction undergoing neoadjuvant therapy. There was no statistically significant difference between decubitus position and prone position with regard to number of lymph nodes procured (14.6 versus 15.5, p = 0.69), complications (6/11 versus 10/21, p = 1.0), length of stay (9 versus 10 days, p = 1.0), or intraoperative blood loss (85 versus 65 cc, p = 0.14). Thoracoscopic operative times were significantly shorter in the prone group than the decubitus group (86 versus 123 min, p = 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Prone thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization appears to be equivalent to decubitus thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization with respect to blood loss, number of lymph nodes dissected, and complications, but with a significant reduction in thoracoscopic surgical time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18320278     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-008-9799-x

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


  12 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

Review 2.  Port site recurrences after laparoscopic and thoracoscopic procedures in malignancy.

Authors:  P A Johnstone; D C Rohde; S E Swartz; J E Fetter; S D Wexner
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Minimally invasive esophagectomy: thoracoscopic mobilization of the esophagus and mediastinal lymphadenectomy in prone position--experience of 130 patients.

Authors:  Chinnusamy Palanivelu; Anand Prakash; Rangaswamy Senthilkumar; Palanisamy Senthilnathan; Ramakrishnan Parthasarathi; Pidigu Seshiyer Rajan; S Venkatachlam
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 6.113

4.  Thoracoscopic subtotal oesophagectomy.

Authors:  A Cuschieri
Journal:  Endosc Surg Allied Technol       Date:  1994-02

5.  Simplifying minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy with the inversion approach: Lessons learned from the first 20 cases.

Authors:  Blair A Jobe; Charles Y Kim; Renee C Minjarez; Robert O'Rourke; Eugene Y Chang; John G Hunter
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2006-09

6.  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

7.  Prone thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization for minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Authors:  T Fabian; A A McKelvey; M S Kent; J A Federico
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-03-01       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 8.  Transhiatal esophagectomy for treatment of benign and malignant esophageal disease.

Authors:  M B Orringer; B Marshall; M D Iannettoni
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  Laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy with esophagogastroplasty.

Authors:  A L DePaula; K Hashiba; E A Ferreira; R A de Paula; E Grecco
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc       Date:  1995-02

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
  39 in total

1.  A pilot study of the technical and oncologic feasibility of thoracoscopic esophagectomy with extended lymph node dissection in the prone position for clinical stage I thoracic esophageal carcinoma.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Daiko; Mitsuyo Nishimura
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-09-23       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  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 3.  Minimally invasive esophagectomy.

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

Review 4.  Minimally invasive esophagectomy for Barrett's adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Emanuele Asti; Daniele Bernardi; Marco Sozzi; Luigi Bonavina
Journal:  Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2018-10-16

5.  Pressure-controlled versus volume-controlled ventilation during one-lung ventilation in the prone position for robot-assisted esophagectomy.

Authors:  Yong Seon Choi; Jae Kwang Shim; Sungwon Na; Seung Bum Hong; Yong Woo Hong; Young Jun Oh
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-01-30       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Thoracoscopic oesophageal mobilization during thoracolaparoscopy three-stage oesophagectomy: a comparison of lateral decubitus versus semiprone positions.

Authors:  Jiangbo Lin; Mingqiang Kang; Chun Chen; Ruobai Lin
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2013-07-09

7.  Total (Transthoracic and Transabdominal) Robotic Radical Three-Stage Esophagectomy-Initial Indian Experience.

Authors:  S P Somashekhar; Rajshekhar C Jaka
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2016-05-14       Impact factor: 0.656

Review 8.  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

9.  Comparison of short-term outcomes between prone and lateral decubitus positions for thoracoscopic esophagectomy.

Authors:  Jin Teshima; Go Miyata; Takashi Kamei; Toru Nakano; Shigeo Abe; Kazunori Katsura; Yusuke Taniyama; Tadashi Sakurai; Makoto Hikage; Takanobu Nakamura; Kai Takaya; Masashi Zuguchi; Hiroshi Okamoto; Ozawa Youhei; Noriaki Ohuchi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-12-06       Impact factor: 4.584

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.