Literature DB >> 18477255

Ivor Lewis approach is superior to transhiatal approach in retrieval of lymph nodes at esophagectomy.

C S Wolff1, S F Castillo, D R Larson, M M O'Byrne, M Fredericksen, C Deschamps, M S Allen, T G Zais, Y Romero.   

Abstract

Lymph node involvement may impact postoperative therapeutic decision-making and prognosis in patients undergoing esophagectomy. This study evaluates which surgical approach yields the most lymph nodes. We undertook a retrospective chart review of esophagectomies performed by six surgeons from April 1994 to February 2004 using a prospective general thoracic surgery database at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, US. Lymph nodes were categorized into one of 17 regions per the American Joint Committee on Cancer, with the total number of lymph nodes, summed over each region, used as the primary outcome. A total of 517 esophagectomies were performed: 68 transhiatal, 392 Ivor Lewis, and 57 extended Ivor Lewis. A mean of 18.7 (SD 8.5) lymph nodes were retrieved with the Ivor Lewis approach as compared to 17.4 (SD 9.2) with the extended Ivor Lewis approach (P = 0.30). Since there was no statistical difference between the number of nodes collected in either Ivor Lewis approach, they were collapsed into one group for comparison with the transhiatal cases. Significantly more lymph nodes were collected with an Ivor Lewis approach (mean 18.5, SD 8.6) than with a transhiatal approach (mean 9.0, SD 5.0, P < 0.001). As expected, more thoracic lymph nodes were retrieved with the Ivor Lewis approach [mean 12.4 (SD 7.0) vs. 4.7 (SD 5.3), P < 0.001]. The Ivor Lewis approach was also superior for retrieval of abdominal nodes [mean 6.1 (SD 5.6) versus 4.3 (SD 4.4), P = 0.01]. More lymph nodes are obtained at esophagectomy with an Ivor Lewis than a transhiatal approach.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18477255     DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2007.00785.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Esophagus        ISSN: 1120-8694            Impact factor:   3.429


  5 in total

1.  Resection of the irradiated esophagus: the impact of lymph node yield on survival.

Authors:  V R Esposito; B A Yerokun; M S Mulvihill; M L Cox; B Y Andrew; C J Yang; A Y Choi; C Moore; T A D'Amico; B C Tong; M G Hartwig
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2020-10-12       Impact factor: 3.429

2.  Diagnostic evaluation, surgical technique, and perioperative management after esophagectomy: consensus statement of the German Advanced Surgical Treatment Study Group.

Authors:  Daniel Palmes; Matthias Brüwer; Franz G Bader; Michael Betzler; Heinz Becker; Hans-Peter Bruch; Markus Büchler; Heinz Buhr; Beta Michael Ghadimi; Ulrich T Hopt; Ralf Konopke; Katja Ott; Stefan Post; Jörg-Peter Ritz; Ulrich Ronellenfitsch; Hans-Detlev Saeger; Norbert Senninger
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 3.445

3.  Extended lymphadenectomy in esophageal cancer is debatable.

Authors:  Fernando A M Herbella; Rafael M Laurino Neto; Marco E Allaix; Marco G Patti
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 4.  Surgical indications and optimization of patients for resectable esophageal malignancies.

Authors:  Joshua C Grimm; Vicente Valero; Daniela Molena
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 2.895

5.  Optimal management of Barrett's esophagus: pharmacologic, endoscopic, and surgical interventions.

Authors:  Vani Ja Konda; Kunal Dalal
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 2.423

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.