Literature DB >> 21040152

Minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy, a symptom assessment study.

R Mehran1, D Rice, R El-Zein, J L Huang, A Vaporciyan, A Goodyear, A Mehta, A Correa, G Walsh, J Roth, S Swisher, W Hofstetter.   

Abstract

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is used with hope to decrease the morbidity associated with an open esophagectomy. Reflux and dumping syndromes are the most important functional complaints in patients after esophagectomy. This study compares the functional benefits of MIE with open esophagectomy. The study enrolled patients who underwent either minimally invasive or open esophagectomy for cancer between 2004 and 2009. No patients in the MIE group had a pyloroplasty or myotomy. Each patient in the MIE group was paired to a patient in the open esophagectomy group via propensity matching. Matching variables included age, race, gender, preoperative treatment, history of prior cancer, American Society of Anesthesiologists Risk Scale, performance status, clinical stage, body mass index, histology, level of anastomosis, and time elapsed since surgery. The patients were asked to answer 26 questions about their reflux and dumping using validated questionnaires. A total of 181 patients were included in the study. From this group, 44 pairs of patients were created and used for the analysis. The median follow-up was 12.1 months for the MIE group and 18.3 months for the open group. The reflux score was slightly worse in the MIE group (5.5 versus 3.5, P= 0.021). There was no difference in the dumping symptoms between the two groups. The most common complaints seen in the dumping questionnaire in almost one-third of all patients were early satiety, abdominal discomfort, nausea, and diarrhea. Of the patients, 77% were satisfied or very satisfied with their condition in the MIE group compared with 93% in the open group (P= 0.287). Reflux, dumping, and overall satisfaction after MIE without pyloroplasty are comparable with those obtained after open esophagectomy with a pyloric drainage procedure.
© 2010 Copyright the Authors. Journal compilation © 2010, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21040152     DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2010.01113.x

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


  6 in total

1.  Does pyloric drainage have a role in the era of minimally invasive esophagectomy?

Authors:  Tamar Nobel; Kay See Tan; Arianna Barbetta; Prasad Adusumilli; Manjit Bains; Matthew Bott; David Jones; Daniela Molena
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-12-10       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Comparison of pyloric intervention strategies at the time of esophagectomy: is more better?

Authors:  Mara B Antonoff; Varun Puri; Bryan F Meyers; Kevin Baumgartner; Jennifer M Bell; Stephen Broderick; A Sasha Krupnick; Daniel Kreisel; G Alexander Patterson; Traves D Crabtree
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2014-04-21       Impact factor: 4.330

Review 3.  Gastrointestinal Motility Issues in Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Mehnaz A Shafi
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2019-12-10

4.  Quality of Life and Late Complications After Minimally Invasive Compared to Open Esophagectomy: Results of a Randomized Trial.

Authors:  K W Maas; M A Cuesta; M I van Berge Henegouwen; J Roig; L Bonavina; C Rosman; S S Gisbertz; S S A Y Biere; D L van der Peet; J H Klinkenbijl; M W Hollmann; E S de Lange; H J Bonjer
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 5.  Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Waresijiang Yibulayin; Sikandaer Abulizi; Hongbo Lv; Wei Sun
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 2.754

6.  Review of minimally invasive esophagectomy and current controversies.

Authors:  T Kim; S N Hochwald; G A Sarosi; A M Caban; G Rossidis; K Ben-David
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2012-08-02       Impact factor: 2.260

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.