BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy is a complex operation and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. In an attempt to lower morbidity, we have adopted a minimally invasive approach to esophagectomy. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to evaluate the outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in a large group of patients. Our secondary objective was to compare the modified McKeown minimally invasive approach (videothoracoscopic surgery, laparoscopy, neck anastomosis [MIE-neck]) with our current approach, a modified Ivor Lewis approach (laparoscopy, videothoracoscopic surgery, chest anastomosis [MIE-chest]). METHODS: We reviewed 1033 consecutive patients undergoing MIE. Elective operation was performed on 1011 patients; 22 patients with nonelective operations were excluded. Patients were stratified by surgical approach and perioperative outcomes analyzed. The primary endpoint studied was 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The MIE-neck was performed in 481 (48%) and MIE-Ivor Lewis in 530 (52%). Patients undergoing MIE-Ivor Lewis were operated in the current era. The median number of lymph nodes resected was 21. The operative mortality was 1.68%. Median length of stay (8 days) and ICU stay (2 days) were similar between the 2 approaches. Mortality rate was 0.9%, and recurrent nerve injury was less frequent in the Ivor Lewis MIE group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MIE in our center resulted in acceptable lymph node resection, postoperative outcomes, and low mortality using either an MIE-neck or an MIE-chest approach. The MIE Ivor Lewis approach was associated with reduced recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and mortality of 0.9% and is now our preferred approach. Minimally invasive esophagectomy can be performed safely, with good results in an experienced center.
BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy is a complex operation and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. In an attempt to lower morbidity, we have adopted a minimally invasive approach to esophagectomy. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to evaluate the outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in a large group of patients. Our secondary objective was to compare the modified McKeown minimally invasive approach (videothoracoscopic surgery, laparoscopy, neck anastomosis [MIE-neck]) with our current approach, a modified Ivor Lewis approach (laparoscopy, videothoracoscopic surgery, chest anastomosis [MIE-chest]). METHODS: We reviewed 1033 consecutive patients undergoing MIE. Elective operation was performed on 1011 patients; 22 patients with nonelective operations were excluded. Patients were stratified by surgical approach and perioperative outcomes analyzed. The primary endpoint studied was 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The MIE-neck was performed in 481 (48%) and MIE-Ivor Lewis in 530 (52%). Patients undergoing MIE-Ivor Lewis were operated in the current era. The median number of lymph nodes resected was 21. The operative mortality was 1.68%. Median length of stay (8 days) and ICU stay (2 days) were similar between the 2 approaches. Mortality rate was 0.9%, and recurrent nerve injury was less frequent in the Ivor Lewis MIE group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:MIE in our center resulted in acceptable lymph node resection, postoperative outcomes, and low mortality using either an MIE-neck or an MIE-chest approach. The MIE Ivor Lewis approach was associated with reduced recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and mortality of 0.9% and is now our preferred approach. Minimally invasive esophagectomy can be performed safely, with good results in an experienced center.
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: Antonio Ivan Lazzarino; Kamal Nagpal; Alex Bottle; Omar Faiz; Krishna Moorthy; Paul Aylin Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: S J Swanson; H F Batirel; R Bueno; M T Jaklitsch; J M Lukanich; E Allred; S J Mentzer; D J Sugarbaker Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Jan B F Hulscher; Johanna W van Sandick; Angela G E M de Boer; Bas P L Wijnhoven; Jan G P Tijssen; Paul Fockens; Peep F M Stalmeier; Fiebo J W ten Kate; Herman van Dekken; Huug Obertop; Hugo W Tilanus; J Jan B van Lanschot Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-11-21 Impact factor: 91.245
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
Authors: Sheraz R Markar; Henner Schmidt; Sonia Kunz; Artur Bodnar; Michal Hubka; Donald E Low Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Juha Kauppi; Jari Räsänen; Eero Sihvo; Riikka Huuhtanen; Kaisa Nelskylä; Jarmo Salo Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-12-06 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Inderpal S Sarkaria; Nabil P Rizk; Rachel Grosser; Debra Goldman; David J Finley; Amanda Ghanie; Camelia S Sima; Manjit S Bains; Prasad S Adusumilli; Valerie W Rusch; David R Jones Journal: Innovations (Phila) Date: 2016 Jul-Aug
Authors: Hans F Fuchs; Cristina R Harnsberger; Ryan C Broderick; David C Chang; Bryan J Sandler; Garth R Jacobsen; Michael Bouvet; Santiago Horgan Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 4.584