OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been widely applied for esophageal carcinoma treatment. Thoracoscope-assisted transthoracic esophagectomy (TATTE) and mediastinoscope-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy (MATHE) are two kinds of MIE. The objective of this study is to compare these two methods with respect to surgical safety and survival. METHODS: Single-institution experience with MATHE and TATTE was analyzed to assess morbidity, adequacy of tumor clearance, and survival. A pair-matched case-control study was performed to compare 54 patients who underwent either MATHE or TATTE between July 2000 and December 2009. Patients were matched by age, sex, comorbidity, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), tumor location, and stage. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences between the MATHE group and the TATTE group were: shorter operative time for MATHE (194.4 min) versus TATTE (228.1 min), less blood loss during operation in the TATTE group (142.6 ml) versus the MATHE group (214.6 ml), and more lymph nodes retrieved in the TATTE group (19.1 nodes) versus the MATHE group (11.4 nodes). There was no difference in survival between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: MATHE and TATTE are both technically feasible. TATTE can provide better visibility. TATTE has less blood loss compared with MATHE. More adequate tumor clearance in terms of lymph node dissection can be achieved with TATTE.
OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has been widely applied for esophageal carcinoma treatment. Thoracoscope-assisted transthoracic esophagectomy (TATTE) and mediastinoscope-assisted transhiatal esophagectomy (MATHE) are two kinds of MIE. The objective of this study is to compare these two methods with respect to surgical safety and survival. METHODS: Single-institution experience with MATHE and TATTE was analyzed to assess morbidity, adequacy of tumor clearance, and survival. A pair-matched case-control study was performed to compare 54 patients who underwent either MATHE or TATTE between July 2000 and December 2009. Patients were matched by age, sex, comorbidity, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), tumor location, and stage. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences between the MATHE group and the TATTE group were: shorter operative time for MATHE (194.4 min) versus TATTE (228.1 min), less blood loss during operation in the TATTE group (142.6 ml) versus the MATHE group (214.6 ml), and more lymph nodes retrieved in the TATTE group (19.1 nodes) versus the MATHE group (11.4 nodes). There was no difference in survival between the groups. CONCLUSIONS:MATHE and TATTE are both technically feasible. TATTE can provide better visibility. TATTE has less blood loss compared with MATHE. More adequate tumor clearance in terms of lymph node dissection can be achieved with TATTE.
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
Authors: Alexander J Greenstein; Virginia R Litle; Scott J Swanson; Celia M Divino; Stuart Packer; Juan P Wisnivesky Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Nasser K Altorki; Xi Kathy Zhou; Brendon Stiles; Jeffrey L Port; Subroto Paul; Paul C Lee; Madhu Mazumdar Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 12.969
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